pdf_add_page_numbers

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

While annotations indicate the tool is non-destructive and idempotent, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this. It fails to clarify that the tool creates a new output file rather than modifying the source in-place, which is critical given the presence of both filePath and outputPath parameters.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. However, the second sentence essentially duplicates parameter documentation already present in the schema, slightly reducing its value density.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the customization capabilities but omits important context such as file handling behavior (creation vs. modification) and lacks any mention of error conditions or return values.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score is 3. The description lists the configurable options (position, format, startFrom, fontSize) but adds no semantic meaning, examples, or usage guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states the action ('Add') and resource ('page numbers to a PDF'), making the tool's function immediately apparent. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from similar sibling tools like pdf_add_watermark or pdf_embed_image.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use this versus pdf_create_from_template if templates include page numbers). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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