save_paper

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

With no annotations, the description fully handles behavioral disclosure. It states the tool mutates the library, affects personalization, is idempotent, and requires authentication. While it omits potential error conditions or return details, it covers key traits adequately.

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?

Description is concise at 3 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence provides distinct value: purpose, behavioral notes, and sibling differentiation. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description covers purpose, behavior, prerequisites, and alternatives. Lacks explicit mention of return value or error handling, but is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The single parameter 'arxiv_id' is already fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add additional semantic detail beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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?

Description clearly states the tool saves a paper to the user's Scholar Feed library, specifies it's a bookmark operation, and explicitly contrasts with sibling tool 'add_to_collection'. Verb 'save' and resource 'paper' are specific, and the description effectively differentiates from related tools.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (to save a paper) and when not (use 'add_to_collection' for filing into a named collection). Also mentions idempotency and required API key (SF_API_KEY), giving clear context for usage.

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