Toggle public sharing

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

Annotations already indicate write, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., permissions, accessibility scope, or side effects) beyond stating the action.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks detail that could be added without excessive length.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description omits key context: return value, meaning of viewLevel, and effect of enabling public link (e.g., making notebook accessible to anyone). Not sufficient for correct invocation without additional knowledge.

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 description does not explain any of the three parameters (notebook, enabled, viewLevel). Schema coverage is only 33% (notebook described), and the description adds no meaning to compensate for low coverage.

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 'Enable or disable the notebook's public link,' specifying the verb (enable/disable), resource (notebook's public link), and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like share_set_view_level and share_add_user.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., share_add_user for per-user sharing). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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