Restructure PDF pages

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description reinforces this by stating it 'overwrites any existing file' and describes return JSON for success and error cases. It adds specific behavioral details beyond annotations, such as the return format and overwrite behavior.

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 (6 sentences), well-structured, and front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, return format, per-operation requirements, sibling links. No fluff.

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's complexity (6 operations, 7 parameters), the description covers all operations and required parameters. It mentions return format, and with an output schema present (context signals), further details are not needed. It is fully adequate.

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 every parameter already has a description. The tool description adds value by grouping parameters per operation in a compact summary, which aids quick understanding of dependencies. This goes beyond the schema by providing operational context.

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 that the tool restructures PDF pages and writes new PDFs, listing six specific operations. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying 'Use this for page-level structure' and pointing to alternatives for other tasks (annotate_pdf, manage_forms, secure_pdf).

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('page-level structure') and when-not-to-use with sibling references. It also lists per-operation required parameters (e.g., 'merge→input_paths'), helping the agent decide which parameters are needed for each operation.

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