goodnotes_color_object

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuinely new context: it verifies native color and appearance after reload, and warns that the operation may recolor an entire selected group — a real side effect an agent needs before calling.

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?

Three tight sentences, each doing distinct work: action, verification behavior, and a mutation-scope warning. The most decision-relevant fact (which color source) is front-loaded with zero filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states that it checks color and appearance after reload, and it flags group-wide recoloring. It is still incomplete for a destructive tool: no mention of reversibility/undo, and no explanation of what selectionId or operationId must be.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it explains only the color parameter (a hex value sourced from object_colors). selectionId and operationId — the latter apparently an idempotency or tracing key given its pattern — receive no explanation anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Apply one color ... to an allowed selection') and ties the color source to the sibling tool object_colors, so the agent can tell this apart from color-reading tools. It stops short of naming the tool it should not be used for, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

'Apply one color returned by object_colors' implies a prerequisite workflow (fetch a color first) and 'an allowed selection' implies a valid selection must exist, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, and no exclusion such as what to do when the selection is not permitted.

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