notebook_share_public

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool toggles public access and describes the return value (public_link if enabled, None if disabled). However, it omits potential permissions or side effects (e.g., overwriting existing public link).

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 extremely concise, consisting of two clear sentences plus a well-structured Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 existence of sibling sharing tools and the schema lacking parameter descriptions, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the action, parameters, and return type. It could note that the tool modifies existing sharing settings, but overall it is complete for experienced users.

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 clarify both parameters. It does so effectively: 'Notebook UUID' for notebook_id and explains is_public as 'True to enable, False to disable (default: True).' This adds necessary 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Enable or disable') and the specific resource ('public link access'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling sharing tools (e.g., invite, batch) by focusing solely on public links.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative sharing methods (e.g., invite for specific users, batch for bulk). While the sibling names provide some context, the description lacks direct guidance on choosing 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.