remove_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it does not mention side effects, irreversibility, whether the original file is modified or a new file is created, or any permissions needed. The optional output_name parameter hints at output to a new file, but this is not articulated.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and scope 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?

For a simple operation, the description is adequate but has gaps. It does not explain output behavior, return value, or how it differs from related metadata tools like sanitize_pdf. Given no output schema and no usage guidance, it leaves room for ambiguity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema for the 'file' and 'output_name' parameters, but it does clarify that all metadata is stripped, which is not repeated in the schema.

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 'strip' and clearly identifies the resource: 'all metadata (title, author, etc.) from a PDF.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like view_metadata and edit_metadata, which handle metadata differently.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sanitize_pdf or edit_metadata. The description only states what it does, not the appropriate context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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