Add or replace a born-digital PDF paper in the active workspace by providing its path and paper ID, enabling it to be loaded into the theorem dependency graph.
Add or replace a born-digital PDF paper in the active workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| paper_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Add or replace' usefully reveals mutating overwrite semantics, but it does not state what happens to the replaced paper's associated data (notes, theorem links, reading sessions), what prerequisites exist, or how failures (bad path, invalid PDF) manifest.
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?
A single 12-word sentence with the action verb front-loaded and zero filler words. It is well structured and efficient, but it is arguably too short relative to the information load required for a mutation tool with 0% schema coverage.
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 replace-capable operation with two opaque required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot confidently determine what path and paper_id mean, whether the workspace must already be active, or what consequences replacement has on existing associated data.
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 must explain the two required parameters, and it explains neither. 'path' is weakly inferable as a file location, but 'paper_id' is genuinely ambiguous — it is unclear whether it identifies the paper being added, the paper to be replaced, or both — and the relationship between the two parameters is never clarified.
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 states a specific verb ('Add or replace') and resource ('born-digital PDF paper') with a location modifier ('active workspace'). The 'born-digital' qualifier and 'PDF' resource meaningfully differentiate it from workspace_add_arxiv_paper, though the boundary with workspace_add_local_paper is not clearly drawn.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative-tool routing is present. The phrase 'active workspace' implies a prerequisite (a workspace must be open) but that is never made explicit, and the description gives no hint of when to choose this tool over workspace_add_arxiv_paper or workspace_add_local_paper.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.