goodnotes_select_object

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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows selection is a non-destructive mutation of state. The description usefully adds that the result is a 'guarded selectionId' that should be validated via preview, but 'guarded' is never unpacked — no explanation of when the ID expires, what invalidates it, or what a failed selection looks like. This is real added context, but incomplete.

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 core action and the two variants, ending with the actionable preview advice. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return value; it names the selectionId and the guard concept but stops short of describing the shape or failure modes. Combined with the undocumented required viewId and the nested region object, the definition is serviceable but leaves real gaps for a moderately complex, nested-parameter 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 the description carries the full burden. It only gestures at the (x, y) point and the region rectangle; the required viewId parameter is never mentioned, and nothing explains the normalized 0.02–0.98 coordinate space, the nested region width/height bounds, or whether x/y and region are mutually exclusive. An agent would have to guess at interaction between the two input modes.

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+resource ('Select one visible board object') and names both input modes (point vs. rectangular region), which lets an agent picture the operation immediately. It does not differentiate itself from the similarly named siblings goodnotes_select_match or goodnotes_select_board_match, so it falls short of 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?

The description implies mode selection — point for a single object, region for a group — and adds a follow-up step ('preview to check what was selected'). It never states when to prefer this over the select_match siblings, nor any precondition such as the board/view needing to be active, so usage is only implied.

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