Select and reorder local PDF pages

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

Annotations establish the safety profile (readOnly false, destructive false, idempotent false), and the description adds valuable non-structured context: the source must be unencrypted, the output page count is re-verified after writing, document-level structure may be omitted, and signatures become invalid. The signature-invalidation and verification notes are exactly the kind of behavioral caveat annotations cannot express.

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 core operation and the distinguishing ordering/duplication rule are front-loaded, with the example and signature caveat following efficiently. Dense but every sentence carries information; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does its part by stating the result is a new PDF and that its page count is verified. The main remaining gap is the undocumented keep_bookmarks parameter, but overall an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 75%, and the description reinforces the 'pages' semantics ('terms retain order and duplicates; ranges expand ascending') with a concrete example. However, it never mentions the fourth parameter, keep_bookmarks, which is the uncovered 25% and carries a default the agent should understand.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource combination ('Extract, reorder or duplicate pages from an unencrypted local PDF into one new PDF'), making the operation unmistakable. It is clear but does not name a sibling like abox_pdf_split or abox_pdf_merge to differentiate when this tool should be chosen over them.

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 the usage context (extracting/reordering pages from an unencrypted local PDF) and states a precondition that the source must be unencrypted, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives. An agent must infer that split/merge siblings are distinct scenarios.

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