protect_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the encryption standard (AES-256) and the access consequence, which is useful. It does not address whether the original file is preserved or overwritten, password strength/format constraints, or failure behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 tight sentences: the capability first, the actionable motivation second. No filler, no redundancy, and the key fact (AES-256) is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, but the description plus a fully-covered 3-param schema give the agent enough to invoke correctly. The main omission is whether the source PDF is left intact or modified in place, which the description could state.

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%, so all three parameters (file, password, output_path) are fully documented in the schema, including the default output suffix. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (encrypt) and resource (PDF) plus the concrete mechanism (AES-256) and resulting effect (cannot be opened without the password). This cleanly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling unlock_pdf without needing the 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?

"Use this before sending a document that contains anything private" gives an explicit when-to-use trigger tied to a real scenario. It stops short of naming the alternative (unlock_pdf) or stating when not to use it, so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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