goodnotes_verify_restore

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the no-write nature of the call is partly redundant. The description does add genuinely new behavioral context: the check is against a saved baseline rather than live state, and the old uncertain receipt is preserved as a side effect. However it never says what a verification outcome looks like or what happens on mismatch, and 'old uncertain receipt' is undefined jargon.

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 tight sentences with the precondition front-loaded and no filler. The final clause ('Preserves the old uncertain receipt') is dense but cryptic, costing a point on clarity rather than length.

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 two-ID verification tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition leaves two material gaps: what the verification actually returns (a pass/fail verdict, a diff, a receipt handle) and where the caller obtains the required IDs. It is adequate to identify the tool's niche but not sufficient to invoke it confidently or interpret its 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% for both required parameters, so the description must carry the meaning of snapshotId and restoreOperationId and it does not. At best an agent can infer that 'saved snapshot baseline' maps to snapshotId and 'the interrupted restore' maps to restoreOperationId; there is no statement of where these IDs come from or how they must relate.

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 (verify) and a precise object (the already-created native copy) against a named baseline (its saved snapshot baseline), gated on a precondition ('after an interrupted restore'). This clearly separates it from the restore_* siblings, which perform writes, though it never names the closest verify siblings (goodnotes_verify_restored_document/page) to draw the contrast.

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 a clear triggering condition ('after an interrupted restore') and an explicit prohibition ('without repeating any write'), which tells the agent exactly when this tool applies rather than re-running a restore. It stops short of naming the alternative tools to use in the normal (non-interrupted) path, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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