goodnotes_capture_board_adoption

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false; the description usefully adds 'No content is changed', scopes effects to the adoption COPY, and explains that images retain exact source pixels and crop. However, it never says whether verification records state (the likely reason readOnlyHint is false) or what happens on a mismatch, leaving a mild tension with the read-only framing unresolved.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the conditional rules and the no-change guarantee. Dense but every sentence carries information; the only cost is clipped phrasing like 'adoption COPY' that takes a moment to parse.

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 seven-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition leaves the return shape and mismatch behavior entirely unstated, so an agent cannot predict what it gets back or how to react to a failed verification. It covers the input contract adequately but not the outcome contract.

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%, so the description must carry the load and it partially does: it explains selectionId as the selected element, kind as text vs image, the conditional requirement of expectedText for text, and that pages are caller-supplied. It says nothing about key's pattern, role's enum values, or the adoptionId origin, so several of the seven parameters remain undocumented.

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 names a precise verb pair ('Read and independently verify') and a tightly scoped resource ('one selected native text box or image on the adoption COPY'), which separates it from sibling tools such as adoption_status or finish_board_adoption that work on the whole adoption. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the single-element scope is unmistakable.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description presumes the caller already holds an adoptionId, selectionId and source page assignments, which suggests it runs after a prepare/select step. It never states when to call this versus board_adoption_status or finish_board_adoption, nor what to do if verification fails.

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