campus_mendeley_save_doi

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that it verifies exact Crossref metadata, scans for duplicates, and explicitly states what it does not do. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, etc.) without contradiction, giving the agent a fuller picture of side effects and limitations.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose, adds a usage directive, and then provides behavioral limitations. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose, making it efficient and well-structured, though it could be slightly more compact by merging the last two sentences.

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 a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does, when to use it, what it verifies, and what it avoids. It omits details like return format or error handling, but given the simplicity and existing annotations, it is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the parameters but only mentions groupId in passing ('when groupId is provided') and does not elaborate on doi format or constraints. The schema provides basic type/length info, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond that, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 (save), the object (DOI reference), and the target (user library or writable group). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like campus_mendeley_list by focusing on the save operation and explicitly lists what it does not do (certify peer review, upload PDFs, share content), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 explicitly instructs to use it only when the user asks to save a DOI, providing a direct condition for invocation. It does not name alternatives, but the 'only when' phrasing clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that handle listing or searching. The guidance is unambiguous and sufficient.

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