Add to Library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains metadata resolution from Semantic Scholar/CrossRef and the side effect on reviews. However, it doesn't mention idempotency, duplicate handling, authentication, or return behavior, which are relevant for an add/write operation.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Each sentence carries useful information: what it does, how it stores metadata, its connection to recommendations, and accepted input formats.

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 write tool with 3 parameters and no output schema/annotations, the description covers the main aspects: action, input types, metadata resolution, and downstream use. It doesn't describe return values or error handling, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the accepted ID types and adds context about metadata resolution, but doesn't provide new syntax, examples, or constraints beyond 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 states a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('a paper to your personal library'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like library_remove and library_list by referencing the 'arxiv-sanity library primitive' and its role in feeding `recommend`.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (saving a paper to a personal library) and lists the accepted identifier formats. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list makes the distinction implicit.

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