set_bookmark_data_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly details what gets captured, notes that hidden/shown visuals are preserved, and explains the optional page parameter's behavior (re-anchoring to a different page and defaulting to the bookmark's active page). It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., bookmark must exist), which is a minor 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with a precise action and scope. Each sentence provides useful detail. The phrase 'This is the “update bookmark with current data” action' is slightly redundant but reinforces the tool's role, and the overall length is appropriate.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the core operation, enumerates the data state aspects captured, notes preservation of visual visibility, and clarifies the page parameter's behavior. It lacks explicit failure-mode or prerequisite guidance, but these are not essential given the straightforward input schema.

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 67% (bookmark and reportSessionId are each described; page has a schema description too). The description adds slight nuance to 'page' ('re-anchors which page is captured') but the schema already states 'page to capture (omit = the bookmark's active page),' so the added value is minimal. No new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Re-capture an existing bookmark's DATA state from the page's CURRENT live state.' It enumerates exactly what data is captured (filter/slicer values, saved sort, drill position, cross-highlight) and explicitly differentiates this from merely changing which visuals are shown, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_bookmark_options or update_bookmark.

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 includes the clarifying phrase 'This is the “update bookmark with current data” action,' which provides strong context for when to use the tool. It implies this is the standard way to refresh a bookmark's data state, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops 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.