notebooklm_share_notebook

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Share notebook with a user' and does not mention side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, whether an invitation is sent, or what happens to existing permissions. For a mutating access-control action, this is a notable gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single clear sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes to the tool's meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple share operation with all parameters documented in the schema, this is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not disclose return behavior, failure modes, or access-control side effects, leaving some uncertainty for an agent choosing and invoking the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond confirming that the user is the share recipient; it does not further explain role meanings or format expectations, but the schema's role enum and descriptions are adequate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Describes a specific action ('Share'), resource ('notebook'), and recipient ('a user'), making the tool's core function clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like notebooklm_create_notebook and notebooklm_delete_notebook, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use case is implied by the verb 'Share' and the notebook/user/role parameters, so an agent can reasonably infer when to call this tool. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives, but no sibling tool appears to perform sharing either, so the omission is less harmful.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.