goodnotes_create_object

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that coordinates are canvas-relative, that colors come from the current Goodnotes tool state, and that creation triggers a verify-after-reload pass — real behavioral context. It does not disclose what happens on failure, whether the operation is idempotent, or how the reload verification delays the response.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource kinds, then the coordinate frame, then the behavioral caveat. No filler or restatement of the name. It could be marginally tighter, but nothing here 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?

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition covers kinds, coordinate frame, and color/verification behavior but stops short of the parameter-level detail an agent needs to construct a valid ink call or understand operationId. Adequate as an orientation, incomplete as a calling guide.

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 10 parameters, including a nested strokes array and an inkStyle object, so the description must carry the semantics and largely does not. The one genuine addition is that coordinates are relative to the current canvas, which clarifies the x/y/width/height frame; operationId, text, strokes, inkStyle, and the shape-vs-ink parameter requirements are all left undocumented in both schema and description.

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') plus an explicit enumeration of the creatable object kinds and scopes them to a 'writable document'. An agent can distinguish this from goodnotes_create_text or goodnotes_draw_connector by the listed kinds (sticky, rectangle, ellipse, triangle, diamond, rounded-rectangle, ink), though the description never names a sibling to contrast against.

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 only usage signal is the implicit precondition 'in a writable document' and the enumerated kinds. There is no statement of when to choose this over goodnotes_create_text (for text) or goodnotes_draw_connector (for connectors), and no exclusion or failure condition is given.

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