goodnotes_transform_object

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and openWorld=true, so mutation risk is covered; the description adds real value on top by stating that it records local before/after evidence and verifies state after reload. That is genuine behavioral context an agent could not get from the annotations. It stops short of 5 because it never says what a delete actually removes or whether the operation 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action set followed by parameter semantics and verification behavior; no filler. "Keeps local before/after evidence" is slightly cryptic in isolation, which keeps it from a 5.

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 a destructive, open-world mutation with seven parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition covers coordinate units and post-write verification but omits retry/idempotency semantics for operationId and any description of what is returned. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for a tool that can delete content.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter burden. It does well for dx/dy ("fractions of canvas size") and scaleX/scaleY ("relative"), but says nothing about operationId (which by its pattern looks like an idempotency key) or selectionId, leaving three of seven parameters, including the required idempotency key, uninterpreted.

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?

The description leads with a specific set of verbs (move, resize, duplicate, delete) and a clear resource ("the guarded selection in a writable document"), so an agent knows exactly what class of operation this is. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling mutators like goodnotes_move_native_object or goodnotes_arrange_object, so it stops 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?

Preconditions are implied rather than stated: the selection must be "guarded" and the document "writable," which hints at unlock/create prerequisites. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance naming an alternative tool for unguarded selections or native-object moves, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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