remove_bookmark

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that recursive removal affects the full subtree, which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not mention irreversibility, prerequisites, failure behavior, or session requirements, which would be valuable for a destructive 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?

Two short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the one critical conditional detail following. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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?

The description covers the core operation and the trickiest parameter behavior, and an output schema exists so return-value explanation is not required. It falls short only by omitting session_id and not stating the behavior when removing a folder without recursive=true, which are relevant for a destructive tool.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema for recursive ('only for a folder whose full subtree should be removed') and identifies bookmark_id as the target by id. However, schema description coverage is 0% and session_id is never mentioned, so parameter guidance is incomplete.

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 and resource: 'Remove a bookmark by id.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bookmarks and create_bookmark, and the recursive note adds relevant scope.

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?

It gives a useful conditional: 'Set recursive=true only for a folder whose full subtree should be removed,' which guides parameter usage. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so tool-selection context is only implied.

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