unprotect_document

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

The description implies a mutation operation but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the tool is reversible, what happens if the password is wrong, or the state after unprotecting. With no annotations, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise, but at the expense of essential information. While front-loaded, it fails to deliver adequate detail for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and minimal parameter info, the description is incomplete. It does not cover what the tool returns, error states, or behavior under various conditions, leaving critical gaps for the agent.

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 has 0% coverage, and the description adds no information about the parameters. The 'password' parameter's purpose and usage are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone, which is insufficient.

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 'Unprotect the document' provides a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool removes protection from a document. It is distinguishable from sibling 'protect_document', though it lacks specificity on the type of protection.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like protect_document, or prerequisites such as the document being protected. The input schema suggests a password may be required, but this is not clarified in the description.

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