notebook_share_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (invited_count, recipients list, message) and the confirm requirement. However, it does not discuss side effects, permissions needed, or error cases when confirm is false.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. It efficiently covers parameters and returns. Could be improved with bullet points for better structure, but overall no unnecessary text.

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 the tool complexity and absence of annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter details, and return values. It is mostly complete, though it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or prerequisites like ownership.

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%, but the description provides detailed semantics for all three parameters: notebook_id (UUID), recipients (list of dicts with email and optional role, default viewer, with example), and confirm (must be True after approval). This significantly adds meaning beyond the 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 'Invite multiple collaborators in a single request', specifying the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like notebook_share_invite which invites a single collaborator.

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 usage context for batch invitations and notes that confirm must be True after user approval. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like notebook_share_invite for single invitations.

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