Add embedded file attachment (PDF/A-3, Factur-X)

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true but lack safety details. The description adds that the tool auto-emits PDF/A-3b conformance, explains why PDF/A-3 is required for embedded files, and notes the 8 MiB attachment cap. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core function, immediately gives usage guidance with a strong directive, and adds technical context efficiently.

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 complexity (multiple parameters, output schema, sibling tools), the description covers the primary use case, contrasts with siblings, and notes important constraints. It omits details about output mode but the schema covers that.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds value for key parameters: explains that blocks uses the same schema as generate_basic_pdf, and that attachments auto-enable PDF/A-3 and are used for Factur-X. It does not elaborate on outputMode/outputPath, but the schema provides enums 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 clearly states the tool generates a PDF/A-3 document with embedded files, specifies the ISO standard, and explicitly contrasts with generate_basic_pdf for Factur-X/ZUGFeRD use cases. The verb 'Generate' and resource 'PDF/A-3' are specific and distinguish from siblings.

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 explicitly says 'USE THIS INSTEAD OF generate_basic_pdf' when embedded files are needed, and provides context for Factur-X invoices. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the contrast with the sibling implies the exclusion.

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