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 behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Invite a collaborator by email' and does not disclose whether an email is sent, whether invites can be duplicated, whether permissions are required, or what side effects occur.

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 six words and contains no filler, so it is very concise. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting useful behavioral and selection context.

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 invite tool with fully described parameters and an output schema, the basic call signature is covered. Yet the absence of annotations and any information about side effects or sibling alternatives leaves an agent with meaningful gaps about consequences and correct selection.

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 100%, with notebook_id, email, and role already described, including the default role value. The phrase 'by email' does not add meaningful parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('invite') and resource ('collaborator by email'), making the tool's core function clear. It is reasonably separable from sibling tools like notebook_share_public and notebook_share_batch because it emphasizes email invitation, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those 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 description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus notebook_share_batch, notebook_share_public, or notebook_share_status. It states the action but gives no selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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