Remove Document From Folder

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the most important behavioral trait — the operation mutates folder membership but is non-destructive to the document itself. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens when the document is not a member of the folder), idempotency, or any permission requirements. The key safety-relevant behavior is covered; other behavioral context is absent.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The main action comes first ('Remove a document from a folder') and the scope-limiting clarification ('without deleting the document from the library') immediately follows. Every word earns its place; nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

The tool is a simple two-parameter mutation with an output schema, so return-value documentation is not needed. However, with zero annotations, the description omits error conditions (e.g., removing a document that isn't in the folder) and any note about whether the operation is idempotent. These are modest gaps for a tool of this simplicity, but a more complete description would address them.

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%, meaning the schema provides only parameter names and titles ('Folder Id', 'Document Id') with no descriptions. The tool description does not compensate: it mentions 'folder' and 'document' generically but never explicitly maps them to folder_id and document_id, nor does it explain the expected format or semantics beyond what the parameter names imply. With such low coverage, the description should carry more explanatory weight.

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 ('remove') + resource ('document from folder') and adds the critical scope distinction 'without deleting the document from the library.' This clearly differentiates it from the sibling mendeley_delete_document, which actually destroys the library record. An agent can tell this tool apart from nearby siblings without inspecting schemas.

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 clarifying clause 'without deleting the document from the library' implies this tool is for folder-organization operations rather than document destruction, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions. Usage context is implied rather than stated. No direct comparison to mendeley_delete_document or mendeley_add_document_to_folder is provided.

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