Share Remove User

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

Annotations disclose readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond: it explains the confirm-gated two-step protocol, that the default call is a non-mutating preview, and that confirm=True is required to actually mutate. This reveals behavior the annotations alone would not convey.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a tight confirm-gate paragraph. No filler, and the safety-critical detail (default is a preview) is surfaced early. The inline `` `` markup is slightly noisy but harmless.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the confirm flow covers the safety story for a destructive operation. It could mention whether removal is reversible or what the preview contains, but for a destructive mutation it is otherwise complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it largely does: 'notebook' accepts a name or ID, 'confirm' defaults to False and gates mutation, and 'email' must be submitted 'verbatim.' The confirm mechanics and the name/ID flexibility add real meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Specific verb + resource + target: 'Remove a user's access to a notebook.' The verb 'remove' cleanly distinguishes it from siblings share_set_user and share_set_access, which grant/set rather than revoke access. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 description gives clear invocation context via the two-phase confirm pattern: 'called with confirm=False (default) it does NOT mutate — it returns a preview,' then re-submit with confirm=True. This is strong operative guidance, but it never names an alternative tool (e.g., when to prefer share_set_user/share_set_access over this revocation).

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