workspace_add_doi_paper

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool operates on a single eligible public PDF candidate and that multiple candidates defer to user selection, but says nothing about permissions, failure behavior, or what actually happens when the candidate is ineligible.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the primary use case leads, the alternative conditions follow. Minimal waste, though the phrasing is slightly terse and leaves some inferential gaps.

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 1-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main usage case and one exclusion, but does not close the loop on parameter format or on what the tool returns or does when no single candidate is eligible.

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% for the single required doi parameter. The description uses the phrase "root DOI" but provides no format, syntax, or examples, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap left by the schema.

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 ("Load a user-requested root DOI") with a qualifying condition ("when one public PDF candidate is eligible"). It distinguishes the tool from the external-import siblings by scoping to user-requested root DOIs, though it stops short of naming the alternative tool directly.

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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance: "Do not use for newly discovered external references: those require an import plan and review first," and notes that multiple candidates require user selection. The condition that selects this tool over the import path is stated, but the alternative tool is not named.

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