notebook_share_public

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the toggle behavior and return values (public_link if enabled, None if disabled). It could mention that enabling makes the notebook publicly accessible, but the intent is clear.

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 concise, using a docstring-style format with Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded and each sentence provides necessary information without fluff.

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?

Tool has output schema, so return details are optional. Description already covers returns. It is complete for a toggle tool, though no mention of prerequisites or side effects. With siblings, it stands alone well.

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 description must add meaning. It explains notebook_id as 'Notebook UUID' and is_public with default and effect. This adds value beyond the schema properties.

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 tool's action: 'Enable or disable public link access.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like notebook_share_status and notebook_share_invite.

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 when to use (enable/disable public link) but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use. Sibling tools exist for checking status or inviting by email, but no comparison is given.

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