add_action_button

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the written payload (exact visualLink shape), the button label, and the return value, and notes the prerequisite that bookmarkName must come from list_bookmarks/add_bookmark. It doesn't discuss error handling or permissions, but for a non-destructive add operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 compact and information-dense: every clause adds value—behavior, payload construction, parameter source, and return type. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool's moderate complexity (8 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential non-obvious details: how the button links to a bookmark, the exact visualLink shape, and the returned id. It doesn't explain the session/positioning params, but those have defaults or are conventional, so the overall tool is usable.

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 low (38%), mostly for page/text/bookmarkName. The description compensates for the key parameter by explaining bookmarkName's origin and purpose, and for text by referencing the label. However, the positioning and sizing parameters (x, y, width, height) and reportSessionId receive no description-level semantics beyond the schema defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Add a button bound to a BOOKMARK') and immediately distinguishes itself from generic button tools like add_button/add_nav_button by specifying the bookmark-triggered view-switch pattern. It also clarifies the behavioral effect (clicking applies the bookmark) and the return value.

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?

It clearly states the intended use case (view-switch pattern via a bookmark) and points to list_bookmarks/add_bookmark as the source for bookmarkName, implying a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for page navigation use add_nav_button), leaving a small gap in exclusionary guidance.

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