createBookmark

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new bookmark' implies a write operation but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate links, or the response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient—it lacks critical behavioral details like error handling or side effects.

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 with zero waste—'Create a new bookmark' is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly without sacrificing clarity for its limited scope.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or idempotency, doesn't explain parameter interactions, and omits return values. For a creation tool in a system with many siblings, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters (e.g., 'link' as URL, 'collectionId' as number). The description adds no meaning beyond this, not explaining relationships like how 'collectionId' relates to collections or what 'important' entails. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding.

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 'Create a new bookmark' clearly states the action (create) and resource (bookmark), but it's vague about what constitutes a bookmark in this system and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'createCollection' or 'createHighlight'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the bookmark's nature or context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'updateBookmark', 'batchUpdateBookmarks', and 'searchBookmarks', the description doesn't indicate whether this is for initial creation only, whether it should be used instead of batch operations for single items, or any prerequisites. The absence of usage context leaves the agent without direction.

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