redact_pdf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does state the critical irreversible nature ('permanently', 'cannot be recovered') and that pages are rasterized, which is valuable. However, it omits important details like whether the original file is overwritten or a new file is created, and whether all pages or only matching pages are rasterized. These gaps reduce transparency.

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 a single sentence that is tightly packed with meaning: action ('redact'), scope ('exact text values'), method ('rasterize pages'), and consequence ('cannot be recovered'). No unnecessary words or repetition make it highly efficient.

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?

With no output schema and 5 parameters, the description is relatively minimal. It captures the core purpose and a major side effect but does not clarify file handling (overwrite vs. new file) or rasterization scope (all pages vs. only affected pages). These are significant contextual details for a destructive operation. However, it is sufficient for a basic understanding of the tool's purpose.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing that 'terms' are exact values (matching the schema's 'Exact words, phrases, or values to redact'). It does not clarify dpi, output_name, or case_sensitive further, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: 'redact exact text values and rasterize pages', clearly stating the primary action and its consequence. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like rasterize_pdf (which only rasterizes without removing text) and sanitize_pdf (which generally cleans metadata rather than redacting content).

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 phrase 'Permanently redact exact text values' provides a clear context for when to use this tool (permanent redaction of specific, exact terms). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use this instead of rasterize_pdf' or 'not for pattern-based redaction'. Still, the implied scope is reasonably clear.

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