edit_form_layoutPDFの欄を足す・動かす・書式を変える・消す（1〜100件）。座標は pt、ページの左上が原点。 位置は box（矩形。近くの罫線に合わせる）・at（点を含むセルの空き）・anchor（原本の文言の右・下・周り）のどれか。 value で位置を決めたうえで記入できる。値が収まらなくなる変更と値のある欄の削除は、その欄だけ rejected。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | ||
| remove | No | ||
| form_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: coordinates are in pt with top-left origin, deletion of fields containing values is rejected, and fitting failures reject only the affected field rather than the whole batch. This adds meaningful operational context for a destructive editing tool.
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 terse and front-loaded: operations and batch size come first, followed by coordinate rules, positioning modes, and rejection behavior. Every sentence carries useful information.
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?
Given the destructive annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior an agent needs: operations, coordinate system, positioning strategies, and partial rejection. It is not exhaustive about every nested field property, but it is complete enough for correct tool selection and invocation.
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?
The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema by explaining box, at, and anchor positioning modes, the coordinate system, and that value can be filled after positioning. It still leaves some FieldEdit properties such as kind, align, wrap, label, and valign unexplained, but the key spatial semantics are covered.
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 uses specific verbs and a clear resource: adding, moving, restyling, and deleting PDF fields. It also states the batch range (1–100), which distinguishes this layout-editing tool from fill-oriented siblings.
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?
It clearly implies when the tool applies by listing the operations it performs and their limits, but it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of siblings such as fill_form or fill_forms. The usage context is present but not fully routed.
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.