Share with a user

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

The description indicates a write operation ('grant'), consistent with readOnlyHint=false, but adds no additional behavioral details. It does not disclose whether notifications are sent, what happens if the user already has access, or the role/permission implications. Annotations already convey side effects via openWorldHint=true, so description adds minimal value.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter usage without becoming verbose.

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 5 parameters (2 required), low schema coverage, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter roles (e.g., permission values), expected outcomes, error cases, or prerequisites (e.g., must be owner). The tool definition leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 only 20% (only 'notebook' is documented as 'Notebook UUID.'). The description mentions 'Google account' hinting at 'email' but does not explain 'notify', 'message', or 'permission' (EDITOR/VIEWER). The tool description fails to add meaning beyond the minimal 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 tool grants a Google account access to a notebook. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like share_set_public or share_set_view_level, which might also modify access. The verb 'grant' and resource 'notebook' are clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to use share_add_user vs share_remove_user or share_set_public, or what context calls for this tool. The description lacks any usage context.

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