Share Set User

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses upsert semantics, the 1-100 grant limit, that batches may mix editor/viewer, that notify/message apply to all grantees, and the preview/confirm behavior. It does not cover auth/permission requirements or what happens to grants not re-listed, which keeps it short of a 5.

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-loads the core upsert contract, then layers the workflow and batch/scope details in short lines. Dense and largely waste-free, though the backtick-heavy formatting makes it slightly harder to scan than plain prose.

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 values needn't be re-explained. For a 7-parameter upsert with mixed grant batching, the description covers the essential selects and behaviors; only permission/auth prerequisites and partial-failure behavior are left uncovered.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains email + permission, the grants array shape and its editor/viewer values, notify and message scope, and the confirm/notebook_id step. Remaining ambiguity is minor (exactly what notify sends, what confirm does on failure).

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+resource ("Upsert access") and immediately disambiguates its two input modes (single email+permission vs. a batch of grants). It is clear about what the tool mutates, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the nearby share_set_access or share_remove_user siblings, leaving some routing to inference from the tool name.

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 concrete conditional guidance: use email+permission for a single grant or 1-100 grants for a batch, and it describes the preview-then-confirm workflow with the notebook_id. It lacks any explicit when-not-to-use or sibling-alternative statement (e.g. share_set_access vs. share_remove_user).

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