Edit a PDF

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

Annotations already establish destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by clarifying that it generates a new document and that the operations shape is non-trivial, but it does not explain side effects of delete_original or what happens on partial failure.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the action verbs, explains the core parameter, and closes with a necessary caution to consult the API docs for the exact operation shape. 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?

The description gives enough high-level context for selecting the tool and understanding its purpose, and the schema documents most parameters. However, with no output schema and a complex `operations` parameter, the definition delegates critical invocation details to external docs and does not describe the return value or error behavior.

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 80%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful semantics for the under-documented `operations` parameter, calling it 'a list of page instructions' where 'each entry names a source page and what to do with it,' which materially improves the agent's understanding beyond the generic schema object.

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 names a specific set of actions ('Reorder, rotate, remove or split out pages') on a specific resource ('a single document') and clarifies the output ('producing a new document'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rotate_documents or merge_documents.

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 establishes the scope ('single document') and that this produces a new document, which implies when it might not be appropriate, but it never names alternatives or gives explicit when-to-use/not-to-use guidance. The instruction to consult the Paperless API docs is a usage caution, not a comparison to sibling tools.

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