create_bookmark

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but does not mention side effects, persistence, overwrite behavior for duplicate names, required preconditions (e.g., an open map/project), or permissions, leaving significant gaps 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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and scope, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, full schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values and the parameters are well documented. However, it lacks usage guidance relative to siblings and any behavioral caveats, leaving notable gaps for an agent deciding when to call it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (name, extent, map_name, description) with meaningful descriptions. The description adds only a slight conceptual mapping ('current view' vs 'given extent'), but no syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('bookmark'), along with the scope ('current view, or a given extent') and that it creates a 'named' bookmark. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_bookmarks, apply_bookmark, and delete_bookmark, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool for creating a bookmark. However, the description offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as apply_bookmark for applying an existing bookmark. The agent can infer the context but receives no routing help.

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