Create Bookmark

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the bookmark is private ("Only you see it") and a created object is returned with its ID, which matters for a non-idempotent create.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the privacy note, return value, and sibling pointer. Nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 3-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description supplies the crucial missing return-value information and the privacy model, while annotations cover safety. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, with URL format, name label and position ordering all documented in-schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only gestures at the URL scope ("any Canvas URL") and adds no semantics the schema lacks.

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 — "Save a Canvas bookmark" — plus the accepted target scope (course page or any Canvas URL). An agent can distinguish this create operation from list_bookmarks and delete_bookmark without opening any schema.

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?

"Use list_bookmarks to see existing ones" routes the agent to the read-side sibling, so create-vs-inspect is disambiguated. It doesn't state exclusions such as limits on URL types or duplicate bookmarks, which keeps it short of a 5.

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