goodnotes_set_board_background

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

Annotations already state the write/external/no-destroy profile, so the description's added value is the "current-state guards" precondition and the "verify saved native settings after reload" post-condition, both non-obvious. It still omits what happens when the guard fails, whether the change is reversible, and any rate-limit or permission constraints for an openWorld mutation.

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?

One compact sentence with the action front-loaded, so nothing is wasted. However, the compression into semicolon clauses leaves the guard and verification semantics under-explained rather than crisp.

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 an openWorld mutation with six parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is too thin. An agent cannot learn from it what operationId means, what a guard failure returns, or how reload verification surfaces in the result.

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% across six parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only alludes to pattern/color. It says nothing about url, operationId (whose 8-80 char pattern suggests idempotency), or the required expectedPattern/expectedColor guard inputs, leaving four required parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

"Change whiteboard pattern/color" gives a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from style-setter siblings like set_template or set_shape_style. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the resource rather than stated.

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?

"with current-state guards" implies the expectedPattern/expectedColor preconditions must be supplied, which hints at when the call is valid. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance (e.g. board_settings for reading state) and no statement of what to do on a guard mismatch.

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