Update Bookmark

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is provided. The description adds essentially nothing beyond restating the update target – no mention of file-write consequences to the .aprx, required permissions, or what happens to fields left null.

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 short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is terse to the point of omitting necessary detail.

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 6-parameter mutation tool, the description is too thin: it omits how the bookmark is identified, the effect on the project file, and required-parameter behavior. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the input-side context is markedly incomplete.

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% across 6 parameters. The description names three update targets (name, description, thumbnail) which loosely map to new_name, description, and update_thumbnail, but it ignores the required identification parameters (aprx_path, map_name, bookmark_name) and gives no format or constraint details.

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 clear verb (update) and resource (map bookmark) plus the mutable fields (name, description, thumbnail). It is understandable on its own, but it does nothing to distinguish this from sibling tools like arcgis_pro_create_bookmark, arcgis_pro_delete_bookmark, or arcgis_pro_import_bookmarks.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus create/delete/import/export bookmark siblings, no prerequisites (e.g. the bookmark must already exist in an open project), and no exclusions. Usage must be fully inferred from the name.

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