create_bookmark

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

The description discloses that this is a creation operation (non-destructive, consistent with destructiveHint=false). It adds context about dependencies (file_id from upload_file) and edition/version limitations, enhancing transparency beyond minimal annotations.

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 concise: two short paragraphs with clear front-loading of the purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the 7 parameters, 3 required, and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers creation details. It explains type-specific requirements and edition/version constraints, though it could optionally mention that the bookmark is created in the specified channel.

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?

All 7 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying the conditional requirements for link_url and file_id based on bookmark_type, which goes beyond the schema's individual property 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 clearly states 'Create a channel bookmark' and distinguishes between link and file bookmark types, making the purpose unambiguous. Compared to sibling tools like list_bookmarks or delete_bookmark, the action is well-defined.

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 provides usage conditions: for link type require link_url, for file type require file_id from upload_file. It also notes edition and version requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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