pdf_protect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the encryption method, permission controls, and cost, but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether the original file is overwritten or a new file is created via output_path), error behavior, or what happens if the PDF is already protected. Basic behavioral info is present but not comprehensive.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action, encryption standard, and cost. It is not verbose and earns its place, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the return value (e.g., success/failure, output path), nor does it detail the behavior of each permission flag or the purpose of owner_password and idempotency_key. An agent calling this tool would need to infer many details.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only hints at permission parameters ('control print/modify/copy permissions') without mapping them to allow_copy, allow_print, allow_modify. It does not explain owner_password, idempotency_key, output_path, or the required file and password beyond 'local path' and 'password'. This is insufficient for 8 parameters.

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 verb 'password-protect', the resource 'PDF', and specifies AES-256 encryption plus permission controls. It is distinct from siblings like pdf_unlock (which removes protection) and pdf_redact (which redacts content), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 usage: password-protecting a local PDF and controlling permissions. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context of siblings (e.g., pdf_unlock for unlocking) provides implicit differentiation. A more explicit when-not would push this to 5.

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