Remove document properties

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

Annotations supply readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description usefully confirms the non-destructive model ('write a copy') and, more importantly, enumerates the exact metadata fields removed (author, title, subject, keywords, creator, producer), which is context the annotations do not carry. It does not address other metadata carriers such as XMP or how existing output conflicts are handled, but the central behavioral trait — safe, additive stripping — is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action and its exact effect, and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 transform with a full output schema and safety annotations, the description plus structured fields cover what an agent needs. The only residual gap is what happens to non-listed metadata (e.g. XMP) and whether any permissions apply, neither of which blocks a correct call.

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%: both 'input' and 'output' carry full semantics, including allowed-folder constraints and the no-overwrite rule. The description adds no path, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Write a copy') and resource (the document property set), and enumerates exactly which properties are stripped, so an agent can tell this apart from pdf_protect, pdf_flatten, or pdf_compare without opening a schema.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to any alternative or complementary tool among the 29 siblings. The only implied usage is 'you want metadata gone', which the name already conveys.

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