goodnotes_create_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: that it makes a full native duplicate, that it verifies page count, and that it writes a source mapping to local storage — the last being a side effect an agent would otherwise not anticipate.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite and the non-destructive guarantee. Nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema.

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?

It covers what is created and the key safety fact, but for a three-parameter creation tool with no output schema, it says nothing about what the snapshot returns (an ID, a path) or how to reference the saved mapping later. Two of three parameters remain opaque, so it is minimum viable rather than complete.

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% for all three required parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only adds meaning for 'title' (must be concrete/explicit); 'itemPath' (a 1–13 element UUID hierarchy identifying the source item) and 'operationId' (its purpose, likely an idempotency or tracing token) are left completely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: create a native duplicate of an item as a recovery snapshot, plus two secondary behaviors (verify page count, persist a source mapping locally). It is far from tautological, but it never names or contrasts with goodnotes_restore_snapshot, which is the obvious adjacent operation, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It supplies a prerequisite constraint ('Requires a concrete title') and a safety statement ('no original contents are changed'), which implies when to reach for it — before risky edits, as a recovery point. However, there is no explicit 'use this when X, use restore when Y' guidance and no statement of when not to use it.

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