notebook_share_public

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. However, it only says 'Enable or disable public link access' without detailing effects on existing shares, permission requirements, or whether the action is reversible. This is insufficient for a mutation tool that modifies access controls.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. While brief, it contains no filler and is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool, though some additional behavioral context could be included without harming conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but has gaps. It does not explain the outcome of enabling/disabling, such as whether a URL is generated or if existing public links are affected. More context would improve completeness for this access-control tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'public link' but does not elaborate on parameter values beyond what the schema already provides. It meets the baseline without adding significant extra meaning.

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 resource ('public link access'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like `notebook_share_invite` and `notebook_share_batch` by focusing on public access toggling.

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 for toggling public link access but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `notebook_share_invite` for invited access. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, so the guidance is minimal.

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