goodnotes_skip_batch_step

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already structured. The description adds genuinely new information: the skip does not undo the step's effects, and the batch resumes afterward. It stops short of saying what happens to the skipped step's partial output or whether the action is reversible.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the key caveat, then the downstream effect. No filler, though 'after inspecting its uncertain outcome' is slightly vague phrasing for a precondition.

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?

A non-readonly, open-world batch operation with three fully undocumented parameters and no output schema needs more than this. The description covers the effect on the batch but not preconditions to validate before calling or what happens to the skipped step's artifacts.

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 mentions none of jobId, stepIndex, or reason. Only the raw schema types (UUID pattern, 0-99 index range, 1-500 char reason) constrain the agent; the meaning of a valid reason or which step is eligible is never explained.

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 (skip) on a specific resource (an unfinished batch step), and adds the sequencing effect (remaining work resumes). It does not name the sibling goodnotes_retry_rejected_step, so the boundary between skipping and retrying must be inferred.

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?

Gives one precondition - use it after inspecting an uncertain outcome - which implies usage context. It never says when not to skip (e.g., when the step failed cleanly and should be retried via the retry sibling), so the agent must guess the alternative.

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