Add page numbers

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the operation is local-only and the file is never transmitted. It also notes cover skipping, which affects output. It does not explain overwrite semantics or why it is non-idempotent, leaving minor gaps.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: what it does, how it differs from the closest sibling, and the local-processing guarantee. The differentiator is front-loaded after the core action.

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?

For a nine-parameter mutation tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, sibling disambiguation, and privacy. The only notable omission is output/overwrite behavior relative to the input file, though the force parameter partially addresses this.

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 all nine parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description's mention of 'centred, optional of N total, skippable cover' loosely maps to position/format/skipFirst but adds no syntax or defaults beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline.

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+resource (stamp page numbers on each page) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling pdf_bates by explaining this is a reading aid, not legal evidence control. An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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 Bates contrast implies when to use this tool versus the alternative, and the 'reading aid' framing clarifies intent. However, it does not state explicit preconditions (e.g., that input must be a valid PDF, or when numbering is inappropriate).

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