campus_mendeley_save_reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it checks all target pages for the same URL before writing (a dedup guard) and can target a writable group. Auth requirements and return behavior remain unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and constraint, and every sentence maps to a real concern (routing, required metadata, dedup, integrity rules). The 'Do not invent...' and 'Use only when...' rules add length but earn their place as guardrails.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, dedup behavior and the group target. It omits return value and permission prerequisites, but the annotations already carry the safety profile, so the gaps are minor.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It clarifies url (HTTPS), title (exact) and groupId (optional writable group), but leaves type, year, source and authors completely unexplained, so roughly half the parameters are undocumented in both places.

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 (Save) and resource (reference) and immediately scopes it with 'without a confirmed DOI', which distinguishes it from the sibling campus_mendeley_save_doi. An agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 condition 'without a confirmed DOI' implicitly routes to save_doi for DOI-confirmed cases, and 'Use only when the user asks to save it' sets a clear trigger. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool, so it's strong but not fully explicit about when-not.

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