sigma_add_workbook_bookmark

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

Annotations already indicate `readOnlyHint: false` and `destructiveHint: false`, so the description adds no new behavioral context. It does not mention idempotency, duplicate bookmark behavior, required permissions, or success/failure semantics.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, making it highly scannable.

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?

This is a mutating tool with a nested, open-ended `body` parameter, yet the description provides no details about bookmark structure or use cases. The output schema exists, but input ambiguity remains significant for safe invocation.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not compensate. It mentions 'a workbook' but never references `workbook_id` or `body`, leaving the `body` object (which has `additionalProperties: true`) completely undefined.

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 a specific verb ('Add') and a clear resource ('a bookmark to a workbook'), immediately conveying the tool's function. It is easily distinguished from sibling `sigma_list_workbook_bookmarks`, which is the listing counterpart.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of required fields or context. The existence of sibling `sigma_list_workbook_bookmarks` implies add-vs-list usage, but no explicit comparison is made.

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