goodnotes_copy_page

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds substantive context beyond that: editable contents are preserved, the operation verifies page identities, text and rendered appearance, and the source page is left intact. It does not discuss failure/rollback behavior or permission requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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 mechanism, then verification and the non-destructive guarantee. No filler, though the verification sentence is dense and could be split for readability.

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 9-parameter, 8-required mutation with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the safety/verification story but leaves most parameter semantics and the return/confirmation behavior unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the load, yet it only clarifies that 'both page-order hashes are required' (expectedSourceOrderHash and expectedOrderHash). It says nothing about placement, operationId, destinationPath, expectedPageCount or sourceUrl semantics.

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 ('Copy one native page into another notebook') plus the mechanism ('Goodnotes in-app clipboard'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like goodnotes_copy_native_selection, goodnotes_copy_text_object and goodnotes_copy_image_object.

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 closing 'Does not remove the source page' implicitly distinguishes this from a move/relocate operation, and the clipboard mechanism hints at the in-app context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the other copy_* siblings or to goodnotes_restore_page.

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