x_api_delete_users_bookmark

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the mutating high-risk nature, required OAuth scopes, environment-selection behavior, expected response shape, common failure conditions, and safety warnings. This provides comprehensive behavioral context beyond the bare operation.

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 well-structured with labeled sections and is information-dense, but contains some redundancy such as 'Use when: Delete Bookmark' and repeating the mutating risk in both the Risk and Safety Warnings. It is somewhat lengthy but each section contributes useful details for a no-annotation scenario.

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 mutating tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers prerequisites, environment selection, parameter constraints, response shape, failure conditions, and recommended tools. It also provides an example, making it highly complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description explains the required parameters (id, tweet_id) and the scoping behavior for scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey. However, it omits semantics for preferredAuthType and authorizationKey, which are only mentioned in a safety warning without explaining their use. Thus it adds value but does not fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 'Delete Bookmark' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like x_api_create_users_bookmark and x_api_get_users_bookmarks. The purpose is unambiguous and directly matches the tool name.

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 explicit 'Do not use when' guidance, mentioning alternative tools like x_schema_discovery and x_query_suggestion, and lists recommended prerequisite/follow-up tools. However, the 'Use when' section merely restates 'Delete Bookmark' and adds no additional context, so it is not fully explicit on when to use.

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