pdf_split

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely useful context: new files are written into a folder and existing files are never overwritten unless overwrite=true. That directly tempers the destructive hint and is the key safety detail an agent needs. It still omits output file naming and what happens when page count isn't a multiple of N.

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 with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the overwrite safety constraint follows immediately. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a destructive file-writing tool with 0% schema coverage, the description should say more about output file naming, behavior with an existing output directory, and what happens to the source PDF.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It explains the overwrite parameter semantics and implies pages_per_file ('N pages each'), but input_path and output_dir get no added meaning beyond their names, and defaults/constraints (pages_per_file min 1, max 10000, default 1) are left to the schema.

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 ('Split a PDF into parts of N pages each') and the side effect (writes new PDFs into a folder). It is unambiguous against siblings like pdf_merge or pdf_compress, though it does not explicitly name or route away from any sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself (splitting a PDF), but there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, no note on when to prefer pdf_extract_text or pdf_merge, and no stated prerequisites such as the PDF existing or the output folder being creatable.

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