goodnotes_verify_moved_object

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the key behavioral guarantees: receipts must already be verified, the old receipt status is preserved, and paste/delete are never re-issued (no duplicate side effects). That adds real operational context not present in the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags. It does not describe what a failed verification does to state, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the safety guarantee ('Never repeats paste or delete') placed last for emphasis. No filler, though the middle clause list is packed tightly enough to need a second read.

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 single-parameter audit tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers trigger, preconditions, and checks. However, with no output schema, there is no statement of what the audit returns or how a failed verification is reported, leaving the agent without a result expectation.

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% on the single operationId parameter, so the description must carry meaning and only partially does: it implies the ID refers to a saved move operation with associated receipts, but never ties that to the operationId field or mentions its format. An agent can infer intent but not the value's origin or shape.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Audit a saved native move after interruption', and scopes it to checking the deleted source region and the native destination copy. That is clearly distinct from nearby siblings such as goodnotes_verify_copied_object or goodnotes_verify_restore, though no sibling is named explicitly as an alternative.

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?

'after interruption' and 'requires verified copy/deletion receipts' give a concrete precondition and trigger context for when this tool applies. It stops short of naming which sibling to call instead when the precondition is not met, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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