Create Bookmark

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

Annotations already declare write behavior (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: bookmarks are created from the active map view or a specified layout mapframe, and duplicate names are rejected.

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 wasted words. It states the action, source options, and duplicate-name rejection compactly.

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 output schema covers return values and annotations cover write behavior, so the description need not explain results. However, with six parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves aprx_path and several parameter meanings undocumented, making it only minimally complete for reliable invocation.

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% for six parameters. The description clarifies the source selection, which partly maps to source_type, layout_name, and mapframe_name, but it does not explain aprx_path, name, or description semantics. It compensates only partially for the missing schema documentation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('create bookmark') plus the source scope ('CURRENT active MapView or specified layout mapframe') and a key constraint ('rejects duplicate names'). This makes it easy to distinguish from list_bookmarks, update_bookmark, and delete_bookmark siblings.

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?

Gives clear context about the source view or layout mapframe, which implies when the tool applies. But it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like update_bookmark or import_bookmarks, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions beyond duplicate-name rejection.

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