bookmarks_delete

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the full behavioral load. It usefully discloses the profile-scoping rule (IDs are local and never reusable), but never states whether deletion is permanent or recoverable, whether deleting a folder removes its children, or what happens on a nonexistent/sibling-profile ID.

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 paragraphs, action first, constraint second — front-loaded and free of filler. The only slight redundancy is restating that profile_id is required, which the schema's required list already enforces.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the parameter set is small and well-covered. However, for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, the description should explicitly flag irreversibility or trash semantics; that absence is the main completeness gap.

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 coverage is only 50% — bookmark_id is documented in the schema, profile_id is not. The description fills that gap by explaining where profile_id comes from (profiles_list) and constraining ID scope to that profile, which is meaning the schema alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a bookmark") that unambiguously distinguishes it from bookmarks_create, bookmarks_update and bookmarks_move. It stops short of naming when this is preferred over alternatives, but the core action is unmistakable.

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?

Provides one concrete usage prerequisite — profile_id must come from profiles_list — which is genuinely actionable. It gives no guidance on when to delete versus update or move, and no exclusion cases or error handling expectations.

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