Keep, delete, or rotate selected PDF pages by original page ranges to create a reorganized output file without altering the source.
Keep only some pages, delete some, and/or rotate some (angle 90, 180 or 270). Ranges use the original page numbers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keep | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| angle | No | ||
| delete | No | ||
| output | Yes | ||
| rotate | No | ||
| overwrite | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It does add that ranges map to original page numbers, which matters because keep/delete/rotate can interact. It omits what happens to unlisted pages, how keep and delete combine, and how overwrite/output behave.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation set and with no filler. The angle parenthetical is slightly awkwardly placed but costs almost nothing.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described. For a 7-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions, however, the description leaves too much implicit: the interaction between keep and delete, the destination file requirement, and overwrite semantics.
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 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains keep, delete, rotate, and constrains angle to 90/180/270, but says nothing about path, output, or overwrite, leaving 3 of 7 parameters undocumented anywhere.
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 three concrete operations (keep, delete, rotate) on a page resource, which is specific enough to distinguish it from merge/split/compress. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives like split (which also removes pages) or compress. The only constraint given, that ranges use original page numbers, is a scoping note rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.