Manage documents

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: DOCX/XLSX edits can replace the input when no output is supplied, PDF write operations create or replace requested output, and read_document is read-only. This directly explains what may be destroyed, which aligns with and enriches the destructiveHint=true annotation.

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?

Three compact sentences: the first states scope and actions, the second warns about input/output replacement behavior, and the third routes text files elsewhere. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy.

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 rich conditional schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to choose and call the tool safely: operation families, destructive side effects, and the key sibling distinction. The schema handles remaining parameter-level details.

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 the baseline applies. The description adds high-level operation categories but does not clarify individual parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema already documents, such as page range syntax or output patterns.

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 names concrete resources (PDF/DOCX/XLSX) and specific verbs (read, edit, merge, split, extract, inspect), so an agent immediately knows the tool's domain and scope. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from read_file, which prevents confusion with a sibling tool.

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?

It gives a clear trigger condition ('structured document content') and explicitly routes plain line-oriented text to read_file. It does not mention alternatives like manage_files, but the context plus the named sibling exclusion is sufficient for most selection decisions.

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