pdf_blank_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'insert blank pages' but does not disclose that it creates a new file (outputPath), permissions needed, or what happens on edge cases (e.g., duplicate positions). This is insufficient 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 sentences, zero waste. The first states the action, the second provides practical use cases. Appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core action and common uses. It lacks details on page size default behavior and error handling, but is reasonably complete for its purpose.

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 schema fully describes all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'specified positions'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Insert' and the resource 'blank pages', with examples like 'separator pages' and 'chapters starting on odd pages'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like pdf_insert_pages (which inserts existing content) by specifying 'blank pages'.

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 description provides clear use cases (separator pages, odd-page starts) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like pdf_insert_pages or pdf_add_image for adding non-blank content. It implies usage context well.

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