notlai_share_note

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that public links are read-only and that the permission parameter is ignored for public links. However, it does not describe other behavioral aspects like idempotency, effects on existing shares, or return values.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded. Every sentence provides essential information with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple share tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the two main use cases and parameter roles. It could mention the return format (e.g., link for public share) but is otherwise complete for practical use.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral difference when `email` is present vs. absent and that `permission` is ignored for public links. This goes beyond the schema's attribute descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Share a note' and distinguishes two distinct modes: public link (without email) and user share (with email). This clearly identifies the tool's action and differentiates it from siblings like `notlai_unshare_note` or `notlai_create_note`.

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 clear guidance on when to use each mode: without email for a public read-only link, with email for user-specific sharing with a permission level. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient for typical usage.

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