goodnotes_run_batch

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

Annotations already flag destructive and open-world, and the description adds real behavior beyond them: PDF snapshots are taken before destructive edits by default, verified operations are idempotent and never repeat, and ambiguous writes halt for review. That is exactly the safety and failure-mode context an agent needs before invoking a destructive batch runner.

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, no filler, with the core action and the safety guarantees front-loaded. Every clause carries information.

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 destructive, open-world batch mutation the safety story is well covered, but the definition leaves out what a 'step' means relative to maxSteps=1, where a jobId comes from, and what a call returns (no output schema exists to cover that). Adequate but with clear operational gaps that matter given the step limit.

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% and the description never mentions jobId or maxSteps by name. 'Bounded steps' loosely gestures at the maxSteps parameter (default 1, max 3), but the agent gets no explanation of what a step is, why the default advances only one step, or what jobId must reference.

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 names a specific verb pair (execute/resume) and resource (a saved batch), plus the operating mode (bounded steps). It is clearly distinguishable from plan/status/help siblings by the word 'execute/resume', though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

'Execute/resume a saved batch' implies the tool runs a job that already exists, so an agent can infer it follows planning, but no condition tells it when to run versus check status or skip a step. There are no exclusions or prerequisites stated (e.g., that a jobId from planning is required).

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