goodnotes_shape_style_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description only needs to add beyond that; it does so by disclosing the exclusions and, importantly, that the returned styleId is short-lived, which affects how the agent must sequence follow-up calls. It stops short of saying how short-lived or what 'guarded' means, leaving a real gap.

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 action and scope, and the exclusion plus return-value note in the second. No filler, though 'guarded' is an unexplained term that costs a bit of clarity for its brevity.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must characterize the return; it names only a short-lived styleId and gives no shape for the opacity/thickness values or the lifetime bound. Combined with an undocumented selectionId, an agent can guess the call but not confidently chain 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% and there is a single required parameter (selectionId) whose UUID format and referent are documented only in the schema as a pattern. The description's 'one ... shape' hints that the id designates a single shape, but it never explains what a valid selectionId is or how to obtain one, so it does little to compensate for the coverage gap.

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: 'Read one guarded native shape fill opacity and stroke thickness.' The 'Excludes ink and groups' clause narrows scope so the agent can distinguish it from style reads on other object types, though it never names the sibling info tools (text_box_style_info, image_crop_info) that read the analogous properties.

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 exclusion of ink and groups implies the applicable cases, and 'guarded' hints that some shapes are ineligible, but neither the eligibility condition nor the relationship to goodnotes_set_shape_style (the obvious consumer of the returned styleId) is stated. Usage must be inferred rather than read.

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