move_spark_to_ash

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It uses 'burn' to imply a destructive or irreversible action, but it does not explicitly state whether the bookmark is permanently removed, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects occur. The metaphor is vague and could mislead about the actual consequences.

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 sentence with a clarifying parenthetical, achieving maximum conciseness. It is front-loaded with the action and includes no extraneous words, making it efficient and straightforward.

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?

While the tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, the description lacks essential context for a mutation operation. It does not explain what 'Ash' represents in the system, whether the action is reversible, or any prerequisites/consequences. The rationale 'not valuable enough to vault' offers partial context but is insufficient for a tool that likely changes bookmark state.

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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter (id as 'Bookmark UUID') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as required permissions or format expectations, so it does not exceed the baseline provided by 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 action: 'Burn a Spark bookmark to Ash' with a parenthetical rationale. It identifies the specific resource (Spark bookmark) and destination (Ash), distinguishing it from moving to Vault. However, the verb 'burn' is metaphorical and relies on the tool name 'move' for full clarity.

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 parenthetical 'not valuable enough to vault' provides a contextual criterion for when to use this tool, implying it should be used when a Spark bookmark doesn't warrant being saved to Vault. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving room for ambiguity.

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