redact_images_in_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It clearly states that modifications are in-memory and require an explicit save to persist, which is essential for a mutating operation. It does not detail the irreversible nature of redaction after saving, but the save step implies this.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and provides necessary workflow context without any redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 large sibling set and the tool's complexity, the description covers the necessary context: how to load, modify, and save. It does not explain the full effect of redaction (e.g., underlying content is destroyed), but with a detailed schema and output schema present, this is adequate.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantic details about parameters beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to.

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 the tool's function ('Redact all images in specified pages') with a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from sibling redaction tools by focusing on images. The distinction from redact_text_by_search and redact_by_coordinates is evident from the purpose.

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 description provides clear workflow guidance: the document must be loaded via load_pdf first, and changes are saved with save_pdf. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the tool's purpose and sibling context make the appropriate use cases clear.

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