Crop PDF margins

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the core behavioral hazard: the crop sets CropBox so trimmed content is HIDDEN, remains in the file, and can be restored. It also discloses local-only processing ('never sent anywhere'), which is meaningful privacy context that no annotation conveys.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the mechanics, the restorability caveat, and the local-processing note. The core operation is front-loaded and the important warning follows immediately.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden, and it adequately covers what happens to the input file and the crop semantics. It does not mention the overwrite behavior governed by 'force' or error/interaction with an existing output file, which the schema only partially covers.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the point-to-inch conversion (72 = 1 inch) that explains how to interpret the numeric margin values in practice. The per-side vs. aggregate margin semantics are still left to the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Trim the visible area of each page by the given margins') and immediately pins down the unit convention ('in points, 72 = 1 inch'). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling operations like pdf_rotate, pdf_watermark, or pdf_split.

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?

Gives clear context for use and an explicit exclusion boundary: 'Cropping is not redaction,' which steers an agent away from using this when the goal is permanent content removal. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool or redaction workflow to use instead, so it falls just short of a 5.

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