share_notebook

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses both read and write behaviors (toggle public link), mentions what information is returned (status, owner, collaborators). But lacks details on error conditions, permission requirements, or side effects beyond toggling.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second explains parameter usage, third provides additional context. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 3 optional parameters and an output schema (not shown), description explains the return values (status, owner, collaborators) and usage modes. It covers the key behavioral aspects for a read/write tool, though lacks specifics on required parameter combinations.

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 100%, but description adds value by explaining the conditional behavior of `set_public` (omit for read, set for toggle) and clarifying that `notebook_id` and `notebook_url` are alternatives. This is beyond the schema's basic 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 clearly states the tool reads sharing status or toggles public link, with specific verb 'Read' or 'toggle' and resource 'notebook’s sharing status'. It distinguishes between the two modes, setting it apart from sibling tools like notebook_create or notebook_delete.

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?

Provides explicit instructions: omit `set_public` to read, set to true/false to toggle. Also mentions 'RPC-backed (no browser)' to clarify execution context. However, it does not discuss when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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