goodnotes_edit_text

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so mutation risk is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the save is verified, 'reload verification remains mandatory,' ranges apply to post-replacement text, and ranges override body formatting. It still does not describe failure handling or permission requirements.

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?

Five dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then escalating to the constraints that most often cause misuse. No filler, though the fragment style ('UTF-16 offsets; end exclusive.') is terse enough to be slightly cryptic on first read.

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 destructive, nested-object, 7-parameter edit tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation's core semantics and the mandatory verification step. Remaining gaps (idempotency behavior of operationId, targetId resolution, what happens when verification fails) are modest but real.

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 compensate, and it does for the hardest parts: 20-range cap, nonoverlap, UTF-16 offsets, end-exclusive semantics, whole-field requirement for list/highlight, and post-replacement addressing. It says nothing about the roles of targetId, operationId (presumably an idempotency key), or the start/end body range defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Edit text and apply body formatting plus up to 20 nonoverlapping formatRanges in one verified save.' This precisely characterizes a combined replace-and-format operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like goodnotes_write_text or goodnotes_set_text_box_style, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Extra ranges address the final text after replacement and override body formatting' and 'List/highlight require the whole field' give useful conditional rules for constructing formatRanges. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of write_text/create_text, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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