add_to_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the tool never adds to the Reading Queue, never sends, treats no-OA-PDF papers as normal library records (no 'no-oa-pdf' tag), reports duplicates with existing collections, and creates collections on demand.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, a contrast to siblings, and detailed behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value, but it is slightly lengthy; a more concise version could be trimmed without losing essential information.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 parameters, no enums) and presence of an output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, behavioral quirks (duplicates, no-OA handling), and error handling (unresolvable refs).

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 compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that 'refs' can be 'arXiv id, DOI, URL, or title' and that 'collections' are optional and 'created on demand'. This provides significant context beyond the raw schema, though a bit more detail on parameter formats would be ideal.

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 specifies the tool's action: 'Track papers in Zotero WITHOUT staging them for e-reader delivery.' It identifies the resource (papers in Zotero/library) and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool queue_papers by explicitly stating the 'just catalogue it' path.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for references you want to keep ... rather than deliver') and contrasts with an alternative (queue_papers). It also instructs the agent to relay unresolvable refs to the user.

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