add_bookmark

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only restates the core mutation: adding a bookmark. It does not disclose whether duplicates are rejected, whether permissions are required, or what side effects occur. No contradiction exists, but no behavioral transparency beyond the action itself is added.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without padding.

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 create-like tool, the description plus the fully documented schema gives enough to attempt a correct invocation. However, with no annotations or output schema, it lacks guidance on duplicate behavior, errors, and response expectations, so completeness is only minimal.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (link, emoji, title, channel_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond identifying Slack as the target, which is the baseline case.

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 clear action ('Add') and resource ('bookmark' to a Slack channel), which unambiguously conveys the operation. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling operations like list_bookmarks or remoe_bookmark, but the verb itself separates it from those tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool vs list_bookmarks/remoe_bookmark or channel-management alternatives. No prerequisites such as channel membership or permissions are mentioned, and no alternative routing is given.

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