pdf_crop_page

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

The description gives no information about side effects, such as whether the original file is modified or a new file is created, coordinate system details, or file handling. With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose essential 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 a single direct sentence with no wasted words, making it structurally concise. However, it is too terse to be considered well-structured for a tool with 7 parameters and no supporting detail elsewhere.

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 of 7 parameters, no annotations, and a minimal description, the tool's behavior remains almost entirely unspecified. The output schema exists but the description still fails to explain coordinate semantics, file impact, or pagination, making it deeply incomplete.

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?

The description does not explain any of the 7 parameters (pdf_path, page_number, x0, y0, x1, y1, coordinate_mode). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but provides zero value beyond the parameter names.

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 a specific action ('Crop a page in a PDF') with a clear verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the closely related sibling tool pdf_auto_crop_page, so it misses the top score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pdf_auto_crop_page, pdf_rotate_page, or pdf_delete_page. There is no mention of prerequisites, interactions, or exclusions.

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