sanitize_pdf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool removes JavaScript, embedded files, and metadata, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not mention whether the original file is modified, whether the operation is destructive or reversible, or any side effects on PDF functionality. Gaps remain.

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 conveys the essential purpose without any filler. Every word is informative, and it is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description and parameter schema together cover the essential context: what it does, what it removes, and where the input/output files go. It could be more complete by mentioning output behavior or relationships to sibling tools, but it is adequate for the complexity level.

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?

The input schema already provides full coverage for both parameters (file and output_name) with concise descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('sanitize'), the resource ('PDF'), and the exact items removed (JavaScript, embedded files, metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_metadata, which only handles one of these aspects.

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 description implies usage contexts (cleaning PDFs of potentially dangerous or extraneous content) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like remove_metadata or compress, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It is left to the agent to infer when sanitization is needed.

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