goodnotes_restore_page

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

Annotations only declare the mutation/read-write profile; the description adds real behavioral context: the restore is sourced from a pre-delete PDF checkpoint, demands that the remaining pages be unchanged, requires authorization, and self-verifies original order and content. It does not state what happens when preconditions fail or whether the operation is idempotent, keeping it below 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?

Three compact sentences with the core action and its scope constraint front-loaded, followed by preconditions and the negative case. No filler, though the phrase "recovers the exact native page and verifies original order/content" is dense enough to warrant unpacking.

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 with no output schema, the definition covers mechanism, preconditions, and verification. It omits parameter meaning entirely and is ambiguous about whether the built-in "verifies" step replaces the `goodnotes_verify_restored_page` sibling or is merely internal, which an agent needs to know before deciding whether to call a second tool.

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 neither `operationId` nor `deleteOperationId` is explained anywhere. The description hints that a prior delete operation is involved but never states which parameter carries that ID versus the ID of the restore operation itself, leaving a genuine ambiguity for a mutation call.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Restore one page") and scopes it tightly to pages "deleted by this MCP" using a saved pre-delete checkpoint. The closing clause "Never restores arbitrary historical pages" implicitly separates it from snapshot/document-level restore siblings without naming them.

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?

Gives clear preconditions for use ("Requires unchanged remaining pages and authorization") and an explicit exclusion (no arbitrary historical page restore). It stops short of naming the alternative to call when pages have changed or when a broader rollback is needed, so the agent must infer the fallback.

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