pbi_fire_bookmark

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the trusted coordinate click mechanism, auto-expansion of groups, and return format. However, it does not mention error conditions, prerequisites (bookmark must exist?), or side effects (e.g., navigation).

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 two sentences: the first explains purpose and mechanism, the second lists return values. Every word contributes, and key 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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and 29 siblings, the description covers core action and return type but lacks parameter details (expectPage missing), prerequisites, error handling, and comparison to similar tools. The return value info partially offsets the missing output schema.

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 0% with 3 parameters. The description only explains 'name' (bookmark name) and vaguely mentions 'group' (optional group), but does not describe 'expectPage' at all. This is a significant gap given no schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the verb 'fire' and the resource 'bookmark', and mentions the specific UI mechanism (View > Bookmarks pane, trusted coordinate click) and scope (ANY bookmark, optional group, auto-expand). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_goto_page or pbi_click.

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 usage for firing bookmarks by name, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pbi_click, pbi_goto_page). No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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