pdf_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes key behaviors: auto word-wrapping, pagination, bold/italic support, and configurable fonts/margins/page sizes. However, it does not mention whether an existing file at outputPath would be overwritten, which is a notable omission for a file creation tool. Overall, it adds good context beyond the schema.

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 a single sentence followed by one additional sentence about heading formatting. It is extremely concise, with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and all additional information is relevant and compact.

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 tool has 9 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main functionality. It explains what the tool does, its capabilities, and how to use the content parameter with heading syntax. The lack of output schema is acceptable as the tool creates a file on disk. The description is complete for a well-understood creation tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the '# ' syntax for bold headings and summarizing the layout features (auto word-wrapping, pagination) that relate to multiple parameters. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, providing a cohesive understanding of how parameters interact.

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 starts with 'Create a new PDF from text', which clearly states the tool's purpose using a specific verb and resource. It lists supported features (auto word-wrapping, pagination, bold/italic, configurable fonts, margins, page sizes) that distinguish it from sibling tools like pdf_add_text (which modifies existing PDFs). The description effectively differentiates this tool as the primary PDF creation 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 description clearly indicates when to use this tool (to create a new PDF from text). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the context is clear: this is for creation, while siblings handle modifications. The lack of exclusions or alternative guidance prevents a perfect score.

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