goodnotes_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: created documents become writable, and operationId is an idempotency-style key. It stops short of saying what happens when a duplicate operationId is supplied (error vs. replay), which is the one detail that would complete the picture.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with no filler. The second sentence packs two distinct facts (writability, operationId uniqueness) and could be split for scannability, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description needn't explain return values, and the mutation is non-destructive per annotations. However, for a four-parameter create tool with zero schema description coverage, the missing explanation of folderPath semantics and of duplicate-operationId behavior leaves an agent guessing on two required call decisions.

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 must carry parameter meaning and largely does not. It conveys the values of 'kind' and hints at 'operationId' uniqueness, but 'title' and especially 'folderPath' (a UUID path array capped at 12 items, defaulting to empty) are left entirely to the schema, with no explanation of what an empty folderPath means.

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 (create) and enumerates the exact resources (folder, notebook, whiteboard) plus the container it lands in (a library folder). This distinguishes it from siblings such as goodnotes_create_text or goodnotes_create_object, though it never names an alternative to route between them.

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: you call it when you need a new folder, notebook, or whiteboard. The one piece of guidance given, 'use a unique operationId', is a correctness constraint rather than a when-to-use rule, and there is no statement about when not to use it or which sibling to prefer.

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