write_pdfCreate a simple PDF from text lines. Specify destination path, content, and font size; confirmation required.
Cria um .pdf simples a partir de texto (uma linha por parágrafo). Sujeito a aprovação.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Destino .pdf, relativo ao workspace | |
| text | Yes | Conteúdo do PDF | |
| font_size | No | ||
| confirm_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It discloses that each line becomes a paragraph and that the action is 'Sujeito a aprovação', which is useful. It does not mention overwrite behavior, return value, or what happens after approval, but it is not a pure tautology.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. Every phrase adds information: file type, input mode, paragraph behavior, and approval requirement.
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?
No annotations or output schema make the description responsible for the full call context. It omits the meaning of confirm_token, overwrite/error behavior, and return format. The approval note is valuable but does not make the definition complete for a mutating file tool.
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?
Path and text are already described in the schema, and the description adds one useful semantic: 'uma linha por parágrafo' clarifies how the text parameter is interpreted. However, font_size and confirm_token have no schema description and are not addressed in the description, so the low 50% coverage is only partially compensated.
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 ('Cria') and resource ('.pdf'), states the input ('texto'), and adds a formatting rule ('uma linha por parágrafo'), which makes the tool clearly distinct from siblings like write_docx and write_file. The file type alone disambiguates it within the sibling list.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tool is named. The phrase 'simples' and 'a partir de texto' offer only an implicit hint that this is for plain-text PDF generation, but the description does not differentiate conditions from write_docx or write_file.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.