goodnotes_expand_sticky

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 partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior — the operation depends on a saved visual checkpoint and on an unchanged viewport/region — but says nothing about what happens when those preconditions fail, nor about reversibility.

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 with zero waste; the action and its mechanism come first, the constraints second. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 two-parameter, non-read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and preconditions but omits the most consequential detail: the semantics of the two IDs and how to obtain them. The reliance on a saved checkpoint is noted but not explained in terms of lifetime or invalidation.

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% and the description supplies no meaning for either required parameter. It never explains what operationId is, nor how collapseOperationId relates to the collapse it reverses (presumably the identifier returned by the collapse call), leaving the agent to guess which value to supply.

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 ('Expand a sticky collapsed by this server') and narrows it with the mechanism ('using its saved visual checkpoint'), which is far more informative than the bare name. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling goodnotes_unlock_sticky, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions for use: the same page/zoom/viewport must be active and the collapsed region must be unchanged. That tells the agent when the call will succeed, but it names no alternative (e.g., what to do if the viewport changed or the collapse came from elsewhere) and offers no exclusions.

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