goodnotes_manage_document

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

Annotations already declare a mutating, destructive, open-world operation, and the description adds real value on top: duplicates inherit writability and no permanent deletion occurs. However, there is mild tension between destructiveHint=true and the reassuring 'no permanent deletion' phrasing, and it never explains the rename-vs-move consequences or what operationId does for idempotency.

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 the operation set front-loaded, followed by the writability consequence and the scope boundary. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 5-parameter, 3-required mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is thin: it does not map action values to required parameters (e.g. that move needs destinationPath), nor explain title or operationId. An agent could invoke it but would likely guess on required-field semantics.

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 five parameters are undocumented structurally, yet the description only clarifies one: that paths are 'library itemPath values'. It says nothing about title, destinationPath, operationId, or which parameters each action requires.

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 specific verbs and resource: 'Duplicate a document, or rename/move a writable document', so the three supported operations are unambiguous. It also bounds scope with 'no permanent deletion or sharing', which implicitly separates it from trash/restore siblings, though no sibling is named outright.

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 a clear precondition ('a writable document') and a negative boundary ('no permanent deletion or sharing'), so an agent knows when this tool is not the answer. It stops short of naming the alternative tools to use for deletion or sharing, which keeps it from a 5.

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