add_bookmark_navigator

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

The description discloses that the visual auto-lists bookmarks and can be positioned with x/y/width/height, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing bookmarks), potential side effects, or whether it modifies existing visuals. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, and this disclosure is partial.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes positioning details without any fluff. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (adding a visual with 6 parameters) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention required parameters, specify which page the visual is added to, or describe behavior when bookmarks are absent. The no-code view-switcher context is helpful, but the description leaves significant gaps in setup and side effects.

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 description explicitly states that x/y/width/height are for positioning, adding meaning to those parameters beyond their names and defaults. With schema coverage at only 17%, the description partially compensates but does not explain reportSessionId or page (though page has a schema description). Thus, it adds some value but does not fully cover the parameter semantics.

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 the tool's function: adding a built-in BOOKMARK NAVIGATOR visual that auto-lists bookmarks as buttons. It uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('BOOKMARK NAVIGATOR visual'), and differentiates itself as 'the no-code way to wire a view-switcher,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_view_switcher or add_page_navigator.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool by calling it 'the no-code way to wire a view-switcher,' suggesting it is an alternative to coding a view-switcher or using other navigator tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls slightly short of full guidance.

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