Add Document To Folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the basic mutation ('Add') but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as idempotency, duplicate handling, whether an error occurs if the document is already in the folder, or any side effects beyond the relationship.

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 sentence that is tight, front-loaded, and contains no filler. The key qualifiers 'existing library document' and 'existing folder' add meaningful scope without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not need to explain return values, but it also omits any guidance on error conditions, duplicate additions, or whether the folder_id/document_id must come from specific sibling tools. An agent could invoke it correctly but with incomplete expectations about behavior.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It partially does by clarifying that the operation involves an 'existing library document' and an 'existing folder', which maps to document_id and folder_id. However, it does not explain the ID format, where to obtain valid IDs, or any restrictions on which document types can be added.

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 clear verb ('Add') with a specific resource ('existing library document') and target ('existing folder'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like mendeley_add_document (which adds a document to the library) and mendeley_remove_document_from_folder (which removes it), so an agent can select the correct tool.

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 phrase 'existing library document' and 'existing folder' implies this tool is for linking already-created entities, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus the alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as fetching IDs from list_documents or list_folders. It provides only implied usage context.

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