Delete PDF pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully clarifies that a NEW PDF is written (input is left intact) and adds the 'at least one page must remain' constraint, which is real behavioral context. It stops short of stating error behavior when all pages are requested or anything about output/path handling beyond the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the constraint immediately after. Every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a simple, non-destructive, idempotent transformation with three fully documented parameters, the description plus structured fields give an agent everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and all three parameters are well documented in the schema (path rules, page-range syntax, no-overwrite rule). The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full load.

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 and resource — 'Write a new PDF without the listed pages' — making the operation unambiguous. The negation ('without the listed pages') implicitly separates it from the sibling pdf_extract_pages, though that sibling is never named. Clear purpose, but no explicit sibling differentiation.

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 explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative, but 'At least one page must remain' functions as a precondition that constrains valid invocation. Usage is implied by the verb+resource rather than guided. An agent must infer that pdf_extract_pages is the complementary tool.

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