edit-pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden but only states a high-level action. It doesn't mention that this likely creates a new output file (as implied by outputDir/outputFilename), how input files are specified, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant behavioral ambiguities.

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 redundant words. Every term contributes to the core purpose, making 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?

The tool is moderately complex with nested element types and coordinate systems, but the description doesn't explain overall behavior, output handling, or return values (no output schema). Despite a rich schema, the description alone lacks sufficient context for an AI to reliably invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond 'text or images', but the schema already documents each property's purpose (e.g., coordinates, font size, pages). No additional clarification needed if the schema is consulted.

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 action (add) and the resource (text or images to specific positions in a PDF). It distinguishes from many siblings like rotate-pdf or merge-pdfs, though it could be more explicit about differentiating from add-watermark or add-page-numbers. Overall, a clear and specific verb+resource statement.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like add-watermark or extract-text. Users must infer usage from the name and schema.

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