delete_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says 'Delete', but does not clarify whether the action is irreversible, whether the original file is preserved, or that a new output file is created. The output_name schema hint is not referenced, so an agent cannot anticipate the tool's safety profile or side effects.

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 sentences with a clear example, zero wasted words. The structure is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the example earns its place.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally explain output file behavior, whether the original is modified, and error cases. It only covers the page syntax, leaving significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by giving a concrete example of the pages syntax ('2,4-6'), clarifying that ranges are 1-based and comma-separated, which goes beyond the schema's generic description.

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 verb 'delete' and resource 'pages from a PDF', with a concrete example that clarifies exact semantics. It distinguishes from sibling tools like extract_pages by showing deletion rather than extraction.

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 example provides clear usage context for specifying page ranges. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like extract_pages, split, or divide_pages, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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