unlock_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the upload to the Papyrio API, in-memory processing with no retention, the destructive overwrite of output_path, a 50 MB input cap, and per-call quota consumption. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking 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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with the action and its constraint, then storage/limit details, then output behavior. Every sentence conveys a distinct operational fact with no restatement of the tool name or title.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the security model, data handling, size limit, quota cost, overwrite behavior, and return values. Nothing an agent needs to decide or call correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining that output_path silently replaces an existing file and by describing the result path and byte size returned. That adds real semantics not present in the schema, particularly the overwrite risk.

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+resource ('Remove the password from a PDF') and immediately bounds the scope with 'you already know the password' plus an explicit exclusion ('does not break or guess encryption'). That cleanly separates it from the sibling protect_pdf and from any cracking-style tool.

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 precondition for use ('a PDF you already know the password for') and the negative case ('does not break or guess encryption') are stated explicitly. It doesn't name a sibling as an alternative for the unsupported case, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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