Move, edit, search or tag bookmarks

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds useful build-level context (fetchTree unimplemented, so listing must use search). It still does not say what each action affects (e.g. that untag strips tags irreversibly or that update overwrites the existing title/url), which is the most valuable disclosure for a destructive multi-action tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and sibling boundary before implementation detail. The "MEASURED:" framing and API call signatures are slightly heavier than an agent needs, but nothing is padding.

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?

For an 8-parameter, action-dispatching mutation tool with no output schema and thin annotations, the description covers the underlying API semantics, the action-parameter relationships, and a notable capability limitation. What is missing is per-action guidance on required parameter combinations and what search returns.

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% and each parameter already states which action it serves ("for move", "for update", "for tag/untag"), so the description's mapping of guid+parentGuid/index to move and title/url to edit largely restates the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the load.

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 names the concrete operations (move via parentGuid/index, edit via title/url, search, tag/untag) and frames itself as "the management half of bookmarks," which is a specific verb+resource statement. It explicitly distinguishes itself from browser_add_bookmark, browser_remove_bookmark, and browser_bookmark_folder, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 states the boundary against the sibling bookmark tools (add/remove/folder) and adds a routing hint that listing should go through search({parentGuid}) because fetchTree is unavailable. It does not explicitly say when to prefer update versus move beyond the parameter mapping, but the context for use is clear.

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