goodnotes_prepare_study_board

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive, and the description resolves why a mutating tool is non-destructive: it duplicates rather than editing, so 'Originals remain unchanged.' It also discloses idempotency via a stable requestId and mentions the return payload (source-page excerpts). Missing auth/permission notes and failure modes keep it from 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 sentences with the workflow and its ordering front-loaded, followed by the idempotency and safety guarantees. Every clause carries information; the only mild density cost is packing four distinct behaviors into the first sentence.

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 mutating workflow tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers sequencing, side-effect safety, and idempotency well but leaves the path-shaped parameters entirely undefined. An agent could call it, but only by guessing at sourceItemPath and folderPath.

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% for 5 parameters, so the description must carry the meaning. It only clarifies the title-verification role and the requestId idempotency guarantee; it never explains sourceItemPath (an ordered UUID path), folderPath (destination), or why both 'title' and 'expectedSourceTitle' exist.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Begin a resumable lecture-to-board workflow') and enumerates the internal steps: verify the lecture title, duplicate it, export the copy, and return source-page excerpts. That lets an agent distinguish it from sibling status/run tools. It stops short of naming a sibling, so a 4 rather than 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 wording 'Begin a resumable...workflow' implies this is the entry point before planning/running, and 'Stable requestId prevents duplicate preparation' gives a concrete retry condition. However, no explicit when-not or alternative-tool guidance is stated, so the agent must infer that this precedes goodnotes_plan_study_board and goodnotes_run_study_board.

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