Extract, reorder or delete PDF pages

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

Annotations declare a write operation that is not destructive (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description explains why: a new file is written, the input is untouched, and existing files are never overwritten. It also states what is returned (the new path). It stops short of describing error behavior, e.g. what happens with an encrypted PDF when no password is supplied.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then semantics, then side effects, then the sibling routing note. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return value (a path) and the non-destructive write contract. Combined with 100% parameter coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: pages are 1-based, and reversed ranges like "5-1" are supported — neither of which appears in the schema's page description.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource+scope: 'Write a new PDF containing only the listed pages, in the listed order.' It names the three concrete use cases (range extraction, reordering, dropping pages) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling split_pdf.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use cases ('pull out a range, reorder pages, drop pages') and an explicit when-not with the named alternative: 'To cut a PDF into equal parts use split_pdf instead.' The routing decision is fully resolved without opening any schema.

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