Add to reading list

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

Annotations already declare the write, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world profile, so the description adds real value by disclosing the merge/replace semantics: re-adding merges tags but replaces the note, which is not derivable from idempotentHint alone. It omits failure behavior, such as an unknown or malformed arXiv id, and whether metadata is fetched over the network.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the nuanced re-add behavior. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence could be marginally clearer about which field is merged vs. replaced.

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?

With only three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials, including the non-obvious mutation semantics that annotations only partially imply. The remaining gap is identifier format and error behavior, which is minor for a simple list-add tool.

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%, so the description has to carry the load; it names tags and note and explains their update semantics on re-add, which helps. It never states the expected format of the required id (e.g., an arXiv identifier) or constraints on tag strings, so some meaning is still missing.

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?

A specific verb plus resource: "Save an arXiv paper to the local reading list," with the optional fields (tags, note) called out. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like library_remove and library_list, though it never names them.

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 use case is implied (saving a paper you want on your list) and the re-add behavior hints that it is safe to call repeatedly rather than needing a separate update tool. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to library_remove/library_list, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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