campus_mendeley_raw_api

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the tool is marked as a write so the host can apply its own approval policy, that OAuth is handled separately, that provider responses are untrusted data, and that credentials must never be passed as arguments. This is rich safety context that the annotations alone (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true) do not convey.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then path/body mechanics, then safety constraints. Every sentence carries operational or safety information, though the block of constraints is slightly run-on.

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?

For an open-world raw-API tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth handling, PDF body encoding, and mutation guardrails. It omits response shape and error behavior, but annotations plus the argument that provider responses are untrusted partially compensate.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It documents path format (relative under api.mendeley.com) and the PDF body convention (bodyBase64 vs sourceUrl with contentType application/pdf), but method, query, accept, headers, and body are left to the schema's bare types. Partial compensation only.

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 – 'Call an authenticated Mendeley Core API path' – and scopes it explicitly to 'operations not exposed by a dedicated tool,' which cleanly distinguishes it from campus_mendeley_list_folders, campus_mendeley_save_doi, and the other Mendeley siblings. An agent can tell immediately that this is the escape hatch, not a routine operation.

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?

It names the selection rule (only for operations with no dedicated tool), the precondition for mutation ('only modify the library when the student explicitly requests the exact action'), review steps for uploads, and clear handling for deletions. Alternatives and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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