Update the color and style of an existing bookmark by providing its bookmark ID. Choose from red, purple, blue, green, or yellow, and line, highlighter, or wavy styles.
改已有划线的样式（bookmarkId 来自 add_bookmark 的返回）。 只传想改的字段：colorStyle: 1红 2紫 3蓝 4绿 5黄；style: 0直线 1荧光笔 2波浪（3 无效）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| style | No | ||
| bookmark_id | Yes | ||
| color_style | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
在没有任何注解的情况下，描述较好地承担了行为披露责任：明确这是修改操作、说明部分更新语义，并警告 style 值为 3 时无效。虽然没有提及权限或可逆性，但对这种小型样式更新工具来说已经足够。
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?
两句话没有冗余，第一句说明目的和数据来源，第二句给出参数映射和无效值警告。每个信息点都对调用有直接帮助。
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?
对于只有 3 个参数、无注解且有输出 schema 的简单更新工具，描述已覆盖用途、ID 来源、部分更新行为和全部取值语义。缺少明确“不要在未创建 bookmark 时调用”之类的排斥条件，以及更精确的值类型说明，因此不是满分。
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?
输入 schema 的 description 覆盖率为 0%，描述对此做了有效补偿：列出了 colorStyle 的 1-5 颜色映射、style 的 0/1/2 映射，并解释 bookmark_id 的来源。缺点是用 colorStyle 而非 schema 中的 color_style，且未说明数字应以字符串还是整数传输。
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?
描述以明确动宾结构开头：“改已有划线的样式”，即更新已存在的 bookmarks 样式，并指出 bookmarkId 来自 add_bookmark 的返回。这使它和 add_bookmark、remove_bookmark 等兄弟工具明显区分开来。
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?
描述说明了使用场景是对已存在的划线做部分更新，以及“只传想改的字段”这一关键约定。虽然没有显式列举何时不该用或列举替代工具，但“已有”和“来自 add_bookmark”已经提供了足够的上下文。
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.