bookmarks_update

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a critical operational constraint (profile scoping and ID locality) that annotations could never express, but it omits whether unspecified fields are left unchanged, what error results from a bad profile_id, or any permission/locking behavior. Also slightly imprecise: it implies folders can have URLs updated, while the schema restricts url to bookmarks.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the blocking prerequisite. No filler, though the profile_id guidance reads as boilerplate likely repeated across the bookmark/window/tab tools.

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?

This is a small 4-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and mostly documented fields; the description covers purpose, the required prerequisite, and the cross-profile hazard that would otherwise cause silent wrong-target updates. Nothing critical to a correct invocation 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 profile_id is the undocumented parameter, which the description explicitly compensates for by telling the agent to source it from profiles_list. The optional/null semantics of title and url are covered by the schema itself, so the description adds meaning where the gap is.

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 (update) plus resource (bookmark or folder) and names the mutable fields (title and/or URL), which distinguishes it from bookmarks_move, bookmarks_delete and bookmarks_create in the sibling list. It does not explicitly say how it differs from bookmarks_move (which also mutates a bookmark), so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite for profile_id (obtain it from profiles_list) and warns that object IDs are profile-local and must never be reused elsewhere, which is real usage guidance. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer bookmarks_move for re-parenting, or what to do when updating a folder versus a bookmark.

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