redact_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: offline WASM processing, complete masking of personal information, and zero external data transmission. It does not detail error handling or performance constraints, but the core safety profile is well communicated.

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 concise sentences in Korean, front-loaded with purpose and key operational characteristic (offline, no data transmission). No redundancy or fluff.

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 explains purpose and privacy behavior but does not specify the return format (e.g., base64 string or file path) or mention error handling. Given the absence of an output schema, this missing detail reduces completeness.

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 100% with parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about which data types are targeted (e.g., Korean SSN, bank accounts) that aligns with enum values, but does not provide additional parameter details beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool creates a new PDF with fully masked personal information (e.g., Korean SSN, account numbers, email, phone) from confidential PDFs in an offline WASM environment. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scan_secrets by focusing on redaction rather than detection.

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 use for privacy-sensitive redaction, mentioning offline operation and no data transmission. However, it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scan_secrets for scanning only) or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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