pdf_redact

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses the visual-only nature and that original content remains extractable. It provides a clear warning about the tool's limitations.

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 well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the key point ('VISUAL-ONLY redaction') and concisely explains the limitation and alternative tools without extraneous information.

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 simple tool with 4 mandatory parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete. It explains the tool's behavior, limitations, and appropriate use cases adequately.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema descriptions. It mentions 'opaque rectangles' but does not elaborate on coordinate system or units.

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 'VISUAL-ONLY redaction: draws opaque rectangles over regions on PDF pages,' which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from true redaction tools that modify the content stream.

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?

Explicitly warns against using for true sanitization and provides alternatives like Adobe Acrobat Pro, qpdf, or mutool. Clearly states when to use (visual redaction) and when not to (sensitive data removal).

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