protect_pdf

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

The description discloses that the tool is non-destructive (produces a new document, original unchanged), which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. With no annotations, this clarity is helpful, though it could mention more about permission requirements.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is concise but lacks detail on return values (e.g., new document ID) and edge cases. It covers the essential function but leaves 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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description only adds high-level context about 'optional permission restrictions', not significantly beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 encrypts a PDF with a password and optional permission restrictions, and explicitly notes it produces a new document. This distinguishes it from siblings like compress_pdf or watermark_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?

The description implies usage for protecting PDFs but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like watermark_pdf or flatten_pdf. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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