bulkMoveBookmarks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Move' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this is destructive (overwrites existing data), requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens to bookmarks already in the target collection. For a bulk mutation tool, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the main action and scope, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of purpose.

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 a bulk mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address critical context like error handling, whether the operation is atomic, what confirmation is provided, or how to verify success. Given the complexity of moving multiple resources and the lack of structured safety information, more behavioral disclosure is needed.

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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('collectionId' as target collection ID, 'ids' as list of bookmark IDs). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples, constraints on ID validity, or what happens with invalid IDs. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Move') and resources ('multiple bookmarks to another collection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'batchUpdateBookmarks' or 'updateBookmark' which might also involve bookmark modifications, leaving room for ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'batchUpdateBookmarks' and 'updateBookmark' available, there's no indication of whether this is for bulk relocation only, if it's more efficient for large moves, or if it should be preferred over individual updates. The lack of context makes tool selection challenging.

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