goodnotes_image_crop_info

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

The description does add real behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses that the call consumes the pending draft and that the returned cropId is short-lived, which is valuable planning information. However, 'cancels the draft' is a state mutation that sits awkwardly against readOnlyHint=true, and no other behavioral traits (permissions, error cases when the selection expired) are described.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core read purpose is front-loaded ahead of the side-effect note. The phrase 'native rectangular crop and full source identity' is dense but each clause carries information.

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 one-parameter read-only info tool with no output schema, the description covers the high-level payload and the cropId lifetime, which is adequate. It still leaves the selectionId lifecycle and the shape of 'source identity' unexplained, which matters because the tool's whole input is an opaque handle the agent must already hold.

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 the single required parameter, selectionId; the schema only supplies uuid format and a regex pattern. The description never explains what a selection is, how a selectionId is obtained, or what happens if it is stale, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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: reads a selected image's native rectangular crop plus its source identity. That is concrete enough for an agent to know what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like goodnotes_crop_image or goodnotes_shape_style_info, so the agent must infer the split between 'read crop info' and 'perform a crop'.

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 description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and names no alternative. The clause 'cancels the draft' hints that this must be called at a particular point in a crop workflow, but that ordering constraint is never stated, and nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over goodnotes_crop_image.

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