goodnotes_set_folder_style

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is known; the description still adds real context with the current-value precondition and the post-write verification across all three settings after reload. It stops short of saying what happens on a value mismatch (abort vs. overwrite) or how "authorized" is enforced, which matters most for a destructive write.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action and then the preconditions. Each clause carries information not already in the schema or annotations.

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?

Covers the mutation intent, the read-before-write contract, and the post-write verification for a destructive six-parameter tool, which is a lot for two sentences. The gap is that half of the required parameters (itemPath, expectedTitle, operationId) remain opaque to a caller with no schema descriptions and no output schema to infer behavior from.

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 burden, and it only glosses the property/value/expectedValue trio ("color, icon or favorite flag", "its current value"). The three remaining required parameters, itemPath (the UUID path to the folder), expectedTitle, and operationId, receive no explanation at all.

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 ("Change one authorized folder color, icon or favorite flag") and names the exact mutable fields. The verb "Change" plus the folder scope separates it from the read-side sibling goodnotes_get_folder_style without naming it, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Provides a prerequisite ("Requires its current value"), implying the expected-value precondition must be supplied rather than read on the fly. However, it never says when to use this instead of goodnotes_set_document_favorite, goodnotes_set_shape_style, or the other set_*_style siblings, and gives no when-not guidance.

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