Delete Bookmark

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-read-only mutation. The description adds genuinely useful context by saying the effect is scoped to the caller only (no cross-user impact). It does not state whether the deletion is permanent or whether the same bookmark_id can be re-deleted, so it only partially exceeds annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the scope caveat, then the prerequisite. Nothing is redundant with the title and every sentence carries information.

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 single-parameter deletion tool with annotations and a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, blast radius, and ID sourcing. The only real omission is post-call behavior (what the response looks like / how to confirm success), which is minor given no output schema exists.

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% and the single parameter already documents both its type (numeric string) and its source (list_bookmarks). The description repeats that same sourcing hint rather than adding constraints such as format examples or behavior on a non-existent ID, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Delete ... Canvas bookmarks") plus the scope constraint "Only affects you." That scope sentence implicitly separates it from account-wide mutations, but it never names the sibling pair create_bookmark/list_bookmarks as different operations, so an agent still has to infer the boundary from names alone.

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?

"Get bookmark_id from list_bookmarks" gives a concrete prerequisite workflow, which is more than nothing. However, there is no statement of when to use this versus the obvious alternative (removing a course nickname, unfavoriting, or just ignoring a bookmark), and no warning about when not to call it.

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