goodnotes_plan_layout

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: changes are deferred until run_batch, centers must fit the current viewport, and objects are neither resized nor guaranteed non-overlapping. It stops short of covering prerequisite state or what a failed fit does.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then the deferred-execution behavior, then the geometric constraint and non-guarantees. No filler or repetition.

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 an 8-parameter batch-creation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the deferral model and constraints well. It omits what the call returns (a batch handle needed for the subsequent run_batch) and how the coordinate ranges relate to the viewport, leaving a gap an agent will notice on first invocation.

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 must compensate and largely does not. It only hints at the meaning of the query list and the viewport constraint on startX/startY; columns, spacingX/spacingY, title, and the distinction between query and expectedText are left entirely 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?

States a specific verb and resource: planning a grid of existing text/sticky objects found via unique text queries. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not name a sibling it differs from (e.g. goodnotes_arrange_object or goodnotes_plan_batch), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 'Saves a batch; no movement until run_batch' implies a two-step workflow and tells the agent this is a planning step rather than an applied change. However, no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-arrange_object guidance or prerequisites are given.

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