bookmark

Does 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 states only the action without mentioning side effects, idempotency, authentication requirements, or potential errors such as duplicate bookmarks or invalid tweet IDs.

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, direct sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a single parameter, the description is too minimal. It omits behavioral details like idempotency, error conditions, and what the response or side effect will be, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

The schema has one parameter (tweet_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'by id' only repeats the parameter name without adding meaning about format, constraints, or how to obtain the ID. Minimal semantic value is added.

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 uses the specific verb 'Save' and identifies the resource 'tweet' and destination 'bookmarks', making the action unmistakably clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like like_tweet or retweet by naming the unique bookmarking operation.

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 action is self-evident, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention that unbookmark is the inverse operation, nor does it clarify prerequisites or context for when bookmarking is appropriate.

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