canvas_bookmark_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new bookmark,' implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose permissions required, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clarifying sentence and bullet points for requirements. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 complexity (simple creation with 2 parameters), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, error handling) that are crucial for a mutation tool without annotations. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in context.

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%, with both parameters (name and url) well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by listing the requirements ('Name for the bookmark' and 'URL to bookmark'), which essentially repeats schema info. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra semantic insight is provided.

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 action ('Create a new bookmark') and resource ('quick-access link to any Canvas page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like canvas_bookmark_list (list) and canvas_bookmark_delete (delete), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The description is specific but could be slightly more explicit about sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage by stating 'Add a quick-access link to any Canvas page,' which suggests when to use it (for bookmarking Canvas pages). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or name alternatives like canvas_bookmark_list for viewing bookmarks. The context is clear but lacks detailed exclusions or comparative advice.

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