goodnotes_manage_folder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavior: an identity/parent/child verification pass precedes the write, self-nesting moves are refused, and the authorization model is explained. It stops short of saying whether the operation is reversible or what a rejection looks like, but this is well beyond annotation coverage.

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, no filler, with the core action and its authorization gate front-loaded before the safety behavior. Every clause conveys a distinct operational fact.

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 destructive 6-parameter mutation with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition covers authorization and safety checks but omits parameter meaning, idempotency semantics, and result behavior. It is adequate to avoid catastrophic misuse but not complete enough to invoke confidently across all six parameters.

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% across six parameters, so the description carries the full burden, and it names none of them. It never explains 'action', 'itemPath', 'destinationPath', 'expectedTitle', 'title', or the purpose of 'operationId' (presumably idempotency) — an agent still has to infer everything from parameter names and formats.

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?

Names specific verbs (rename, move) and the exact resource (one folder) with its scope qualifier ('explicitly authorized'). An agent can distinguish this from the style tools (get/set_folder_style) and from document/page tools without inspecting any schema.

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?

States a real precondition — the folder must be explicitly authorized, except MCP-created folders which are auto-authorized — and bounds the operation to a single folder. However, it offers no explicit when-not or alternative routing (e.g., where to go for style changes, bulk operations, or unauthorized folders).

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