protect-pdf

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states 'Add password protection' but does not clarify whether the original file is modified or a new protected copy is created, what happens to output files, or any security implications. The outputDir and outputFilename parameters imply a new output is produced, but this is not stated in the description.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words and directly communicates the tool's purpose. Being short is acceptable for such a simple tool, and every word 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal to be fully contextual. It omits essential behavioral details such as whether the output is a new file, how outputDir/outputFilename interact, and what happens if the PDF is already protected. The description would be more complete with one sentence about output behavior.

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 provides high-coverage descriptions for all parameters (100%), including 'PDF file path or URL to protect', 'Password to protect the PDF with', and output settings. Since the schema already explains each parameter clearly, the description adds no additional semantic value. Baseline of 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 'Add' and a clear resource 'password protection to a PDF document', which precisely states the tool's function. It distinguishes from related siblings like 'unlock-pdf' (which removes protection) and 'compress-pdf' (which changes size), leaving no ambiguity about the intended operation.

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. It does not mention that this tool is for encryption (not decryption), nor does it specify prerequisites such as whether the input PDF must be unprotected or whether output handling requires explicit output parameters. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative mentioned.

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