goodnotes_recall_object

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

Annotations already declare it as a non-destructive, non-read-only, open-world operation; the description adds that the call is appearance-guarded and yields a new selection handle, which is real behavioral context. However, it never says what happens on a guard failure (error vs. empty result), whether an existing selection is replaced, or whether repeated calls are idempotent — significant omissions for a state-changing call.

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, front-loaded with the action and the guard, with no filler. The only weakness is that the closing phrase 'guarded selection handle' is left undefined, which costs clarity without adding noise.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source for return semantics, and 'a new guarded selection handle' is not explained — an agent cannot tell what to do with the handle or how it differs from the original. Combined with the undocumented guard-failure behavior, the definition is adequate but leaves real operational gaps.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the burden is on the description. It does imply that the id names a previously saved board/page object (as opposed to any arbitrary object), which adds some meaning, but it never mentions the parameter itself, where the id comes from, or whether an expired id is rejected.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Return to a saved board or notebook-page object and reselect it') plus a gating condition ('only if its appearance still matches'), so the operation is identifiable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like goodnotes_select_object or goodnotes_remember_object, which is the main gap for 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?

Usage is implied: call this to re-enter a previously saved object, and only when the object's appearance is unchanged. There is no explicit guidance on what to do when the appearance does NOT match, no mention of a fallback (e.g., re-remember or re-select), and no naming of an alternative sibling to use instead.

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