goodnotes_unlock_sticky

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), it discloses refusal conditions and post-conditions - the unlocked state and appearance are verified after reload. It omits whether the operation is idempotent, what errors look like, or what happens if the reload verification fails.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action before the behavioral caveats; nothing is wasted. 'Changed content/view' is slightly compressed jargon that requires inference.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, it covers verification behavior and refusal but leaves the two required parameters, idempotency/retry semantics, and failure responses entirely to the schema. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% for both required parameters. The description never mentions unlockId or operationId, so an agent gets no hint that unlockId comes from a prior prepare call or that operationId is a pattern-constrained operation key.

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 (unlock) and resource (one previously prepared native sticky), which reads distinctly against the generic unlock_object sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, so differentiation relies on the 'native sticky' and 'previously prepared' qualifiers.

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?

'Previously prepared' implies the prerequisite that goodnotes_prepare_unlock must run first, and the refusal of changed content/view hints at preconditions. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over goodnotes_unlock_object or what to do when the refusal fires.

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