goodnotes_import_pdf

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new context: file content is uploaded to the user's Goodnotes account (data egress), and the result is verified by title and page count and remains editable. It does not state size limits, upload failure behavior, or account/permission requirements, keeping it below a 5.

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 compact clauses with no filler; the destination behavior ('as a new notebook') is front-loaded. Slightly dense with a semicolon joining two distinct ideas, but nothing is wasted.

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 write operation with no output schema and zero schema-level parameter documentation, the description covers purpose, destination, and the account-upload side effect reasonably well. It is still missing what folderPath controls, what operationId is for, and what the import returns, so an agent could not confidently place the notebook in a folder without guessing.

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 carry the burden of explaining four parameters. It clarifies filePath as an absolute local path and alludes to title via 'verify title', but says nothing about folderPath (a UUID array of up to 12 destination folders) or operationId (which has a strict pattern and is presumably an idempotency key), leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Import ... PDF path as a new notebook'), which is distinguishable from siblings like goodnotes_combine_pdf or goodnotes_create. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer for a different import scenario, 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?

The phrase 'an explicitly supplied absolute local PDF path' implies a precondition (the path must be local and absolute, not inferred or searched for), which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives such as goodnotes_combine_pdf or goodnotes_create, and no exclusions.

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