Delete Pages — Remove specific pages from a PDF. [category: pdf]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | The PDF to edit. Password-protected input is rejected 400 — run pdf_unlock first. | |
| pages | Yes | Pages to delete e.g. '1,3,5-7'. At least one page must be left. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / pages / descriptionPrevious value: -"Pages to delete e.g. '1,3,5-7'"New value: +"Pages to delete e.g. '1,3,5-7'. At least one page must be left."Input schema / properties / pages / titleAdded value: +"Pages to delete"Input schema / properties / pages / x-uiAdded value: +{
+ "no_recall": true,
+ "page_select": {
+ "leave_one": true
+ }
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description accurately communicates that the tool mutates a PDF by removing pagesnewline. However, it adds little behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as whether the original file is altered, what the output looks like, or whether the deletion is irreversible.
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?
The description is very short and front-loads the key action. The redundant "Delete Pages" prefix and category tag add minor noise, but overall the definition is efficiently sized.
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 simple two-parameter tool, the parameter schema fills most gaps, including page syntax and the unlock prerequisite. Still, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify expected return value or side effects for a mutating operation.
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 100%, and the parameter descriptions already explain the file format, page syntax, and constraint that at least one page must remain. The description itself contributes no additional parameter-level meaning.
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 clearly identifies the action and resource: "Remove specific pages from a PDF." It is specific enough to be understood, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like pdf_extract_pages.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool—when pages need to be removed from a PDF—but does not state alternatives or exclusions. The schema adds a useful prerequisite for password-protected files, but this is not in the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.