add_bookmark

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly states this is a write operation ('Add a bookmark') and that changes persist in the IDA database, which is critical for a mutation tool. It does not mention permissions, but for a simple bookmark-add action, the persistence behavior is sufficiently disclosed.

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 that efficiently conveys the core action and a key behavioral trait (persistence). Every word serves a purpose, and there is no fluff or redundancy, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no enums, presence of an output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the 'what' and the persistence behavior. However, the output schema exists but is not described, and since it's a write tool, a brief note on what the response contains could improve completeness, though this is minor.

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 description must compensate. It adds that the 'description' parameter is optional, but the schema already shows this via 'default': ''. The description does not explain what address format is expected (e.g., hex string, expression), nor does it clarify the description's role fully. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 purpose: adding a bookmark at an address with an optional description. It specifies the verb ('add'), the resource ('bookmark'), and distinguishes from siblings like list_bookmarks, delete_bookmark, and set_comment, making its role unique and unambiguous.

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 the agent wants to mark an address for later reference, and mentions that bookmarks persist, but provides no guidance on when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like set_comment, rename_address, or make_code. It lacks explicit exclusions or context for choosing it over siblings.

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