pdf_unlock

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 password requirement, but omits side effects (e.g., whether it modifies in place or creates a new file), error behavior for wrong passwords, and any implications of the output_path parameter. The mutation of removing protection is implied but not elaborated.

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 captures the core action and a key prerequisite, followed by a brief cost note. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word contributes.

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 four parameters (two required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It fails to explain the output_path and idempotency_key parameters, does not describe return values or success/failure indicators, and lacks any error-handling guidance. The tool is likely more complex than the description suggests.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the file is a local path and that the password is required, but it does not explain output_path (destination for the unlocked PDF) or idempotency_key (likely for retry safety). These parameters remain undefined, leaving agents to guess their purpose.

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 'Remove' and the resource 'password protection from a PDF', which precisely identifies the action. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling pdf_protect (which adds protection) by specifying removal. The condition 'requires the correct password' adds critical context.

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 when a password-protected PDF is present and the correct password is known. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or scenarios where this tool should not be used. No reference to sibling tools like pdf_protect or other PDF utilities is made, leaving selection guidance implicit.

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