goodnotes_remember_object

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

Annotations cover only the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it persists measured board or notebook-page coordinates and an appearance fingerprint, and explicitly warns that subsequent changes invalidate the bookmark. That invalidation rule is the kind of consequence an agent needs and cannot get from the annotations. It does not explain what the call returns (an ID or handle for later recall), which keeps it at 4.

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 dense sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the invalidation caveat follows as a compact consequence clause. Nothing is padded or repeated from structured fields.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is persisted and what invalidates the record, which is the essential behavioral picture. It omits what the caller receives back and what 'guarded' implies procedurally, so an agent knows how to call it but not fully what to do with the result. Adequate but with clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so both parameters (selectionId, label) rest entirely on the description. 'Labeled' maps to label, and 'guarded selected object' implies selectionId must come from a guarded selection, which is meaningful. However, the description says nothing about the label's 1-150 character constraint, nor what

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Save a labeled visual bookmark for a guarded selected object.' It scopes what objects qualify (shapes/images, guarded selections) and what gets persisted, which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from operation tools like goodnotes_transform_object or goodnotes_arrange_object. It stops short of naming the natural counterpart, goodnotes_recall_object, so sibling differentiation is only implied rather than explicit.

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 rather than stated: the phrase 'guarded selected object' points to a prior goodnotes_select_object, and 'changes invalidate the bookmark' hints at a snapshot/recall workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to alternatives such as goodnotes_recall_object or the verify_* tools. An agent can infer the workflow but is not told it.

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