move_flame_to_ash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It offers only a metaphor ('Burn... to Ash') and a value judgment ('not worth keeping'), without stating whether the action is reversible, destructive, or what side effects occur (e.g., deletion of associated content, state changes, permissions required). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core action. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Burn' and the resource, with no unnecessary words.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description omits critical context about the Ash state—whether it is a permanent discard, a separate category, or recoverable. There is no output schema, and no annotations clarify behavior. The agent is left uncertain about the consequences of moving a bookmark to Ash, making the description 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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Bookmark UUID' and 'Why this was burned'). The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Burn') and clearly identifies the resource (Flame bookmark) and destination state (Ash). It distinguishes from sibling tools like move_flame_to_spark by indicating a discard action, and the parenthetical 'not worth keeping' clarifies the tool's intent.

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 usage is implied by 'not worth keeping,' suggesting the tool is for discarding bookmarks with low value. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative move operations (e.g., move_flame_to_spark) or provide clear conditions for when to use this tool versus others.

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