save_paper_to_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions downloading, extracting, and saving, but lacks details on whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the paper already exists, authentication requirements, or the quality of extraction beyond the enum names in the schema. The enum values 'fast', 'smart', 'premium' are not explained.

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 a single sentence of 14 words with no redundancy. Every phrase adds value: 'Download paper, extract content, and save to local library' covers the core action, and 'with optional collection and tags' indicates optional parameters.

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 tool has 5 parameters, a complex action (download, extract, save), no output schema, and many siblings, the description is brief but covers the main purpose. However, it lacks details on return value, behavior on duplicate papers, and explanation of extraction tiers. It is sufficient but not fully complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (it mentions 'optional collection and tags' but that is already in 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action (save a paper to the library), the resource (paper), and what it entails (download, extract content, optionally add collection/tags). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'download_and_read_paper' which likely does not extract or save.

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 implies usage when one wants to save a paper with extraction and optional metadata, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'smart_extract_paper' or 'download_and_read_paper'. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

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