import_pdf_as_paths

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: compound paths and holes are retained, open source PDFs are rejected, and coordinates are in native document points. It does not say whether the write is reversible or what happens to pre-existing target content, but the added detail is substantive.

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 constraints and units. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 destructive, multi-parameter import into an existing document, the description covers the mechanical result well but leaves gaps: no mention of required open-document state as a prerequisite, no undo/permission expectations, and several parameters undocumented. Adequate but not complete.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full documentation burden. It clarifies that fit_bounds are in native document points and that pdf_path must be an outlined vector PDF, but page, group_name, target_layer_path, and document_path semantics are never explained.

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 and resource: copy actual vector paths from a prepared outlined PDF into an open target document. It also carves out a distinct niche versus siblings like place_image (raster) and import_svg_as_editable (SVG), so an agent can differentiate without opening other schemas.

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 clear preconditions ('prepared outlined vector PDF', target document must be open) and exclusions ('No clipboard, linked PDF or raster substitute', rejects source PDFs already open). It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use for raster or linked placement, so the routing guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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