notebook_share_invite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., sends an email), permission requirements, idempotency, or whether collaborators are immediately granted access. This is a significant gap 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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it easy to parse at a glance.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 simple params) and the existence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for selection and invocation. It lacks broader context about preconditions or comparison with similar sharing tools, but for a simple invite operation, it satisfies most informational needs.

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. The sentence 'Invite collaborators by email to a notebook' implicitly ties 'emails' to the recipients and 'notebook_id' to the target notebook, adding some meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not elaborate on formats, validation, or behavior for invalid inputs.

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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Invite') and resource ('collaborators by email to a notebook'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'notebook_share_public' by the 'by email' qualifier, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage (use when you want to invite collaborators via email), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like notebook_share_public or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over others.

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