pdf_delete_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Delete') but lacks critical details: whether the operation is destructive (modifies the original file or creates a new one), permissions required, error handling for invalid pages, or output format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the complexity of a destructive PDF operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or what the output contains, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool correctly in context.

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%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (file path, output path, page numbers). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining page numbering conventions or file format constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('specific pages from a PDF'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like pdf_extract_pages or pdf_split, which also manipulate PDF pages, so it misses the highest score for sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like pdf_extract_pages (extracts pages) and pdf_split (splits PDFs), there's no indication of scenarios where deletion is preferred over extraction or how it differs from other page-manipulation tools.

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