Remove a PDF password

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it writes a *copy* (source is left intact) and it will never attempt password guessing, which explains the failure mode for an unknown password. It does not state what happens on a wrong password beyond that, but the added value is clear.

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, front-loaded with the action and outcome, and the second sentence carries the single most important constraint. No filler, no repetition of the title or schema.

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 the input/output path rules are fully specified in the schema. The description covers the essential behavioral facts (copy semantics, no guessing) for a 3-parameter mutation tool. A brief note on behavior when the password is wrong or when the PDF is unencrypted would make it complete.

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 coverage is 67%, and the one parameter without a schema description is 'password' (also the only optional one). The description compensates by defining that the password must be one the user already knows and that the tool will not guess it, giving the agent the semantics the schema omits. The well-documented input/output path parameters are handled by the schema.

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 states a concrete verb+resource ('Write a decrypted copy') for a PDF, which maps cleanly onto the title 'Remove a PDF password'. It is unambiguous about the outcome, but it never names the inverse sibling pdf_protect, so the agent gets no explicit routing cue from the description itself.

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 clause 'using a password the user knows. Never guesses passwords' is a real usage boundary: it tells the agent this is only for PDFs whose password is supplied by the user, not for brute-forcing protected files. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives such as pdf_protect or how to detect that a PDF is encrypted in the first place.

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