goodnotes_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds that output is a private local PDF with a text index, that it returns exportId and a file path, and that the cloud document is untouched. It stops short of saying where the file lands, whether exports are retained/overwritable, or any size/time limits on a full-document export.

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 core action and output, then the side-effect guarantee. Every sentence carries distinct information, with no restatement of the name or annotations.

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?

The read-only nature, the returned identifiers, and the no-cloud-mutation guarantee make it callable for the default case, and no output schema means return-detail explanations are not owed. But with a 0% schema coverage and an ambiguous two-value format enum, the definition leaves the agent guessing on a parameter that materially changes the export.

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 none of the three parameters are explained in the description. The critical "format" enum (flattened vs editable) is left completely undefined, and the "searchableHandwriting" flag is only indirectly gestured at by "index its text"; only the url parameter's meaning is reasonably inferable.

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+resource (export all pages to a PDF) plus a secondary action (index its text), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling such as goodnotes_import_pdf or goodnotes_compare_exports, 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?

Scope is implied by "all pages" and the local/private framing, and "Never changes the cloud document" hints at when this is the safe choice over mutating tools. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., a valid document url), and no named alternative for partial-page or editable exports.

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