Convert document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose an important non-obvious behavior: not every (source, targetFormat) pair is supported, and points to list_document_conversions for confirmation. However, it does not disclose what happens on unsupported input, whether the operation is read-only, or any filesystem side effects beyond what the schema already states. This is a meaningful but incomplete transparency surface.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence earns its place by providing a critical usage caveat. The parenthetical 'via documents.js's DocumentConverter port' is a minor implementation detail that adds little, so it loses a point from perfect conciseness.

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 tool has a complex schema (5 parameters, nested objects, enums, output schema) and the schema provides rich descriptions for every parameter. The description supplies the essential purpose and the key pairing constraint. It does not attempt to explain the detailed options, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. It would be improved by a brief mention that output can be returned inline or written to a path, but that omission is mitigated by the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema — the list of formats and the unsupported-pair caveat are already present in the enum and parameter descriptions. It does not explain nuances like the fonts array or output inline-vs-file behavior, which the schema covers.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource ('Converts a document from one supported format to another'), enumerates the supported formats, and explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool list_document_conversions by directing the agent to call it first. This clearly states what the tool does and how it fits alongside related tools.

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 offers clear usage context: confirm the (source, targetFormat) pair via list_document_conversions before invoking. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternative conversion tools, but the prerequisite guidance is specific and actionable.

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