notebook_share_invite

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action and return type. It does not disclose important behaviors like idempotency, email sending, or what happens if the collaborator already has access.

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?

Extremely concise: one-sentence purpose followed by bullet-style parameter descriptions. Every part earns its place without redundancy.

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's complexity (inviting a collaborator), the description lacks completeness: no mention of permissions, output schema details, error conditions, or whether the invite is sent asynchronously. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description provides clear semantics for all three parameters: notebook_id (UUID), email (address), role (viewer/editor with default). This compensates well for the missing schema 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?

Clearly states the action: 'Invite a collaborator by email.' The verb 'invite' and resource 'collaborator' are specific, and the description distinguishes from sibling tools like notebook_share_batch or notebook_share_public by focusing on single email invites.

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 such as notebook_share_batch for bulk invites. No prerequisites or context about required permissions are mentioned.

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