Convert document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a verification pass ('every output is reopened and checked') and partial-fidelity reporting, which is real value beyond the schema. But it omits write-side behavior: overwrite semantics when the output exists, whether the 'password' parameter is for encrypted inputs or outputs, and permission requirements.

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?

Terse, front-loaded, and every sentence carries information: the capability matrix first, then the special multi-input rule, then the validation/reporting behavior. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the conversion routes, multi-input bundling, and result reporting. Remaining gaps are the return shape beyond 'reports what could not be carried over' and output-overwrite behavior.

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 already 89%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds routing meaning the schema lacks: which parameters apply to which conversion (dpi/pages for PDF→images, pageSize for images→pdf, sheet for table export) and that 'paths' bundles multiple images in order with 'path' first.

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?

States a specific verb ('Convert') plus resource ('file formats') and then enumerates the exact supported conversion routes (PDF→jpg/png, images→pdf, XLSX/CSV→csv/json, HWP/HWPX→pdf/hwp/hwpx). This clearly separates it from siblings like pdf_edit, image_edit, and doc_read.

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 conversion matrix effectively tells the agent when this tool applies versus editing siblings, and it clarifies the special multi-input case ('several paths become one PDF'). It does not, however, state exclusions (e.g., when to prefer pdf_edit or image_edit for in-place changes) or prerequisites such as the absolute-path requirement.

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