remove_bookmark

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the mutation without noting permanence, required permissions, idempotency, or response behavior. For a destructive operation this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the action, object, and location with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter removal tool.

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?

The operation is simple and the schema fully covers the required parameters, so an agent can invoke it with channel_id and bookmark_id. However, there is no output schema, no effect/permission detail, and no pointer to list_bookmarks for discovering valid IDs, leaving minor but real gaps.

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 both channel_id and bookmark_id. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Remove'), a resource ('bookmark'), and a scope ('from a Slack channel'), so an agent can immediately distinguish it from sibling tools like add_bookmark and list_bookmarks. It is not a tautology because it adds the Slack-channel 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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or contrasts with alternatives such as add_bookmark or list_bookmarks. The intended use is only lightly implied by the verb 'Remove'.

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