goodnotes_restore_document

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context that the tool re-validates original identity, folder and PDF content baseline, implying preconditions can fail the restore. It is silent on what happens when those checks fail, whether the operation is idempotent, or whether existing content at the destination is affected.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the precondition second; no filler. 'PDF content baseline' is slightly cryptic terminology that could have been one word clearer, but nothing is redundant.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is thinner than ideal: the second required parameter is undocumented and failure/idempotency behavior is unaddressed. It does convey the essential mechanism and validation concept, making it minimally serviceable.

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 the description must carry the burden and it only partially does: 'verified trash operation receipt' loosely maps to trashOperationId but explains nothing about format or how to obtain it. The required operationId parameter is never mentioned at all, leaving one of two required parameters entirely undefined outside the pattern constraint.

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 ('Recover one document') plus the mechanism ('verified trash operation receipt'), which separates it from goodnotes_restore_page and goodnotes_restore_snapshot by scope ('one document'). It does not explicitly name or contrast with goodnotes_verify_restore, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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 'verified trash operation receipt' implies a prerequisite (a trash operation must exist and be verified first), which is useful usage context. However, it never states when to use this versus goodnotes_verify_restore or the page/snapshot restore variants, and gives no exclusions or failure-avoidance guidance.

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