Remove a saved bookmark instantly using its unique ID or exact URL, keeping your bookmarks organized and up to date.
Delete a bookmark by id (or by exact URL)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| url | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the destructive nature of deletion but omits any detail about irreversibility, what happens when both id and url are provided, what happens when neither is provided, or any return/error semantics. For a destructive operation, this is a minimal disclosure.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Delete a bookmark') followed by the two parameter variants. There is no filler or repetition; every word adds necessary information.
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 simple two-parameter delete tool, the description covers the core operation and identifiers, but leaves several gaps: no required parameters, so behavior when neither is supplied is undefined; mutuality of id and url is not stated; permanence is not mentioned; and there is no output schema or return-value description. These gaps affect an agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly without further context.
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 0% and the parameters have no schema descriptions, so the description's mention of 'id' and 'exact URL' is the only semantic cue. It clarifies the role of each parameter and that a URL must be exact, but it does not explain precedence if both are supplied, the expected URL format, or the meaning of 'or' in terms of mutual exclusivity. Partial compensation for the schema gap.
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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('a bookmark'), and the two accepted identifiers ('id' or 'exact URL'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling bookmark tools such as bookmark_add, bookmark_search, and bookmark_list, making its role unambiguous.
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 implies that this tool is used when a bookmark should be removed, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over sibling bookmark tools, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing to first search for the bookmark ID. There is no guidance on parameter preference, so usage context is only implicit from the verb 'delete'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.