remove_duplicates

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool scans all collections, removes duplicates keeping oldest, batches in 50, and supports dry run. However, it could emphasize destructiveness and lack of confirmation beyond dry run.

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: first states core action and constraints, second highlights dry run. Every sentence is purposeful, no filler, and information is front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers main behavior, batching, and dry run. It could specify that it operates on user's own collections and that the action is irreversible, but overall it is sufficient for understanding.

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 100%, so parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds no new details beyond the schema, merely mentioning dry run in a general way. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'removes' and resource 'duplicate bookmarks' with specific behavior (keeping oldest, batching 50). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on global deduplication across all collections.

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 mentions dry run support, implying best practice to test first, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like bookmark_manage or cleanup_collections. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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