pdf_sign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'smart positioning' but does not explain what that entails, nor does it disclose side effects, permissions, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool that modifies a PDF file.

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 concise with two sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose. However, for a 7-parameter tool, it could be slightly more informative while remaining concise.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value, error conditions, or how smart positioning works. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 does not add additional meaning beyond the schema for parameters like 'position', 'margin', etc. It only gives a high-level 'smart positioning' hint without elaborating on individual parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Add a signature image') and the target resource ('PDF'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'pdf_add_image' by calling itself a 'simplified alternative for signing documents'. This meets the criteria for specific verb+resource and sibling differentiation.

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 positions 'pdf_sign' as a simplified alternative to 'pdf_add_image' for signing, giving context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide exclusions, which would earn a 5.

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