pdf_redact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so excellently. It discloses the destructive/transformative mechanism (rasterising pages, covering matches, rebuilding as an image PDF), the irreversible loss of the text layer, the need for OCR afterward, and the per-page cost.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action and guarantee, and every sentence adds value—mechanism, output consequence, OCR follow-up, and pricing. There is no filler or repetition of schema 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?

The core outcome, behavior, and cost are clearly explained, and the lack of a text layer is a crucial disclosure. However, with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits output_path behavior, dpi/padding effects, and idempotency semantics, leaving invocation details incomplete.

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 description coverage is only 17%, and the description only clarifies that file is a local path and that terms are the matches to cover. It does not explain dpi, padding, output_path, or idempotency_key, so an agent must guess their meanings and defaults.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Black out terms in a PDF') and clearly differentiates this from sibling PDF tools by emphasizing guaranteed removal via rasterisation. It is immediately obvious that this is redaction, not protection, merging, or conversion.

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 makes the intended use case clear—guaranteed text removal where the text must be provably gone—and even notes the OCR follow-up if a text layer is needed later. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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