set_pdf_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool connects a PDF for text extraction, implying a setup or configuration action, but doesn't describe what happens after connection (e.g., whether it triggers immediate extraction, stores the path for later use, or requires authentication). It also doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or side effects.

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 extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Connect your PDF for text extraction (BYOD)'. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant information. The parenthetical 'BYOD' adds context without verbosity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and involves a mutation-like action (connecting/uploading a PDF), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, extraction ID), error cases, or how it integrates with sibling tools for code management. The 'BYOD' hint is vague and doesn't compensate for these gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (code and path). The description adds marginal value by implying 'code' might be a name for the PDF connection and 'path' is the file location, but doesn't clarify format requirements (e.g., local vs. remote paths) or relationships between parameters beyond what the schema 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 tool's purpose: 'Connect your PDF for text extraction' specifies the action (connect) and resource (PDF). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on PDF setup rather than code retrieval or verification. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'BYOD' means in this context, leaving some ambiguity.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a PDF file ready), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like list_codes or search_code. The 'BYOD' hint implies user-provided content but lacks explicit usage context.

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