Convert Document

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond these: supports 100+ formats, input via local path/URL/base64, converter engine details, returnLink is short-lived and one-time, outputPath only in stdio mode, etc. No contradiction with annotations.

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 fairly long but well-structured: it opens with the primary purpose, immediately provides a usage alternative, then lists examples in a clear block. Every sentence adds information, though some redundancy exists (e.g., repeated format lists). It is front-loaded with the essential message.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 2 required, no output schema), the description covers all parameter behaviors, input forms, converter engine selection, output delivery options (inline, file, link), and even authorization for egress requests. It also explains the relationship to the sibling tool and provides a comprehensive set of examples. No gaps are evident.

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%—all 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds significant value by providing usage examples, common combinations (e.g., 'DOCX → PDF (file: "report.docx", convertTo: "pdf")'), and clarifies edge cases (e.g., converter engine relevance only for PDF/images). However, since the schema already covers parameter meaning, the description's addition is valuable but not essential.

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 a clear verb+resource statement: 'Convert any document to another format without storing a template.' It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'render_document' by specifying when data injection or batch generation is needed. The purpose is precise and unambiguous.

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 explicitly advises when to use the alternative sibling tool: 'Use render_document instead when you need data injection ({d.field} tags), translations, or batch generation.' It also provides numerous concrete examples of common conversions, helping the agent understand typical use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., when a template is required), but the alternative is clearly given.

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