update_bookmark

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions updating specific fields (title and/or URL) by ID, which adds some transparency, but it does not specify side effects, error handling, or whether updates are partial or full replacements.

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 of 12 words, front-loading the verb and resource. Every word is functional, with no redundant 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 simple update tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential actions and parameters. It could mention that the update is applied to an existing bookmark and possibly the return value, but it is largely adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining that 'id' identifies the node and that 'url' and 'title' are the updatable fields. This clarifies the role of each parameter beyond the bare schema, though it lacks details on formatting or constraints.

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 verb 'update', the resources 'node's title and/or a bookmark's URL', and the method 'by id'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_bookmark, remove_bookmark, or move_bookmark.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., move_bookmark, remove_bookmark). It does not state prerequisites or the expected context, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the action 'update'.

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