Share Set Access

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it names the confirmation gate, the token needed to confirm, that the returned view_level is only echoed when set and that the read API cannot report it, and the ordering (view_level before public) chosen so a partial failure fails closed. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the field semantics before the encoding of edge cases. The parenthetical asides (canonical notebook_id, view_level echo) are dense but each earns its place; a small amount of re-reading is required.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and a 0% schema description coverage, the description covers purpose, field semantics, the confirmation workflow, and failure-ordering behavior. An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be fully documented, and the one return caveat that matters (view_level echo) is included.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for all four parameters: notebook accepts name or ID, public is defined as True=anyone-with-link / False=restricted, view_level takes full or chat, and confirm is explained through the confirmation flow. It adds genuine meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set a notebook's link-access settings') and immediately scopes it to link-level access, which cleanly separates it from the per-user siblings share_set_user and share_remove_user. It also discloses the accepted identifier form (name or ID), so an agent can pick it 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?

Gives clear conditions for the confirmation path ('public=True on a restricted notebook returns a needs_confirmation preview; confirm with its canonical notebook_id') and explicitly excludes restricting and view_level changes from gating. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g., share_set_user) or state when to prefer them, so it stops short of a 5.

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