move_flame_to_spark

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

The description discloses the 30-day Spark lifespan, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, with no annotations, it omits other side effects such as whether the bookmark is removed from Flame, idempotency, or return behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple state-transition tool with two well-documented params, the description covers the core behavior and a key side-effect. However, it doesn't describe return values or error conditions, which might be expected for a mutation with no output schema.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description's phrase 'mark as worth reading' provides context for spark_insight but doesn't add new semantic details beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool moves a Flame bookmark to Spark, with the purpose 'mark as worth reading'. This differentiates it from siblings like move_flame_to_ash by specifying the target state and 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?

It describes exactly when to use (when a bookmark is worth reading) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The sibling name move_flame_to_ash implies the alternative, but the description itself doesn't provide that comparison.

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