unlock_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a mutation (removing protection), operates on a local file, and can save output to a different directory/name. However, it does not disclose whether the original file is overwritten, what happens if the password is incorrect, or any rate limits/API nuances. These gaps prevent a higher score.

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 exceptionally concise: three short sentences that front-load the primary purpose, then specify required and optional inputs. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core operation and parameter roles, but lacks important context such as return value, error handling, whether the original file is overwritten, and any API-specific constraints. It is adequate for a simple operation but has notable gaps.

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 coverage is 50% (only file_path and password have descriptions). The description compensates by narratively explaining all four parameters: 'Provide the file path and the current open password. Optionally specify output directory and file name.' This adds meaning for the two undocumented optional parameters (output_dir and output_file_name), clarifying their purpose and optionality, though it does not provide detailed constraints.

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: 'Remove password protection from a local PDF using the PDF4me Unlock API.' The verb 'Remove' and resource 'password protection from a local PDF' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like protect_pdf. The mention of 'local PDF' adds necessary scope.

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 gives clear context for use: you need a local password-protected PDF and the current open password. It also indicates optional output parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., protect_pdf for adding passwords), so it falls short of a 5.

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