sign_pdf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool signs a PDF but does not disclose whether the original file is modified, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The output is described as a Base64-encoded signed PDF, but behavioral traits beyond the core action are absent.

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, using a standard docstring format with clear sections for Args and Returns. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. No extraneous content, though it could be slightly expanded for clarity without becoming verbose.

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?

The description covers the core operation and parameters, and the return type is specified. However, missing context such as certificate management (where to upload), permission requirements, and error handling leaves gaps. Given the tool has an output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, meaning the schema properties have no descriptions. The tool description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'pdf_base64: Base64-encoded PDF', 'certificate_name: Name of a pre-uploaded certificate', etc. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic titles and types.

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 'Digitally sign a PDF with a PKCS#12 certificate.' This identifies the specific verb ('sign'), resource ('PDF'), and method ('PKCS#12 certificate'). No sibling tool performs signing, so it is well-differentiated.

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 mentions 'pre-uploaded certificate' but does not provide guidance on when to use sign_pdf versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., upload via list_certificates), or when not to use it. Sibling tools like list_certificates suggest preparation steps, but no explicit direction is given.

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