bookmarks_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses identity preservation ('keeps its ID, unlike deleting and recreating'), recursive effects ('A folder moves with everything in it'), profile scoping ('never reuse them in another profile'), and specific refusal conditions. These are behavioral traits an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by short paragraphs grouped by topic (semantics, constraints, prerequisites). No sentence is filler; even the ID-preservation note prevents a costly delete-and-recreate workaround.

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 not be explained, and the remaining gaps an agent would face — how to find IDs, profile scoping, and rejected move targets — are all covered. Nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 75%, and the description compensates for the undocumented profile_id by explaining how to obtain it and its scoping implications. It also adds a constraint absent from the schema — that at least one of parent_id/index must be supplied — though it does not restate the index semantics already well documented in the schema.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Move a bookmark or folder') and states both the destination-folder and reorder variants. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like bookmarks_update, bookmarks_create, and bookmarks_delete.

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 an explicit precondition ('Give at least one of parent_id and index'), names the discovery tool ('Use bookmarks_list to find IDs and the current index'), and states the prerequisite for profile_id ('obtain it from profiles_list'). It also enumerates the cases Firefox rejects, which is when-not guidance.

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