goodnotes_manage_pages

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is known; the description adds genuinely new behavior — that deletion writes a PDF/order checkpoint restorable via restore_page, that concurrency is guarded by an order hash, and that native identities are re-verified after reload. It still does not say what happens on hash mismatch or whether partial failures roll back.

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?

Four short sentences, no filler, with the operation list front-loaded and the safety constraints following. Dense but readable; nothing is restated unnecessarily.

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?

Against a destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema and 8 mostly undocumented parameters, the description covers safety and post-condition verification well but leaves command-specific requirements and error behavior unexplained. Adequate to attempt a call, not fully sufficient to call correctly on the first try.

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 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, and it only explains two: expectedPageCount and expectedOrderHash. The semantics of command values (how add-before differs from add-after, what rotate/outline/move require), plus destination, title and operationId, are entirely undocumented anywhere.

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 opens with specific verbs and a concrete resource ("Duplicate, add, reorder, rotate, outline or trash one page in an allowed document"), so an agent immediately knows this mutates a single page within a document. It scopes the target to one page in an allowed document but never names a sibling it is not, so differentiation from tools like goodnotes_copy_page or goodnotes_arrange_object is left implicit.

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?

"Requires expected count; provide order hash to guard concurrent changes" gives real prerequisites for a safe call, which is more than most definitions offer. However, it never says when to prefer this over copy_page, list_pages or arrange_object, and gives no guidance on which commands are appropriate in which situation beyond the verb list.

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