pdf-toolkit-mcp

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

The annotations indicate non-destructive write operations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true). The description adds crucial behavioral context not found in annotations: form fields become non-interactive in the output, which is a significant side effect that would surprise users if omitted.

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 sentences total. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence delivers a high-value warning without fluff. Every word earns its place; no redundant explanation of parameters already covered by the schema.

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 three-parameter file generation tool, the description covers the critical functional gap (form field behavior) that annotations miss. However, without an output schema, it could briefly indicate what success returns (e.g., confirmation of the output file path) to be fully complete.

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 schema fully documents all three parameters (filePath, pages, outputPath). The description implicitly aligns with these ('specific pages' references the pages parameter, 'new file' references outputPath) but does not add syntax details, format specifications, or examples beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 ('Extract') and identifies the exact resource ('specific pages from a PDF') and outcome ('into a new file'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like pdf_merge (combining), pdf_rotate_pages (rotating), or pdf_extract_text (text extraction).

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 a critical warning about form field preservation, implying when NOT to use the tool (when interactivity must be preserved). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like pdf_reorder_pages or pdf_merge, and doesn't state prerequisites like file existence.

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