update_bookmark

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the overwrite behavior: listed visuals become hidden and all other recorded visuals become shown, which is essential for understanding the tool's impact. It also defines the hiddenVisuals format. However, it does not mention effects on captureData, reversibility, or failure cases, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 long, focused, and front-loaded with the primary action. It includes all necessary behavioral information without redundancy, and the mention of hiddenVisuals format is concise. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to convey the core behavior well. It does this for the main hiddenVisuals behavior, but it does not explain captureData's role in the update or what happens when the bookmark is missing. Overall, it is adequately complete for a straightforward update tool, but a bit more context on default behavior would improve it.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the effect of hiddenVisuals: listed IDs become hidden, others become shown, which goes beyond the schema's 'comma-separated visual ids to hide.' This clarifies the reset semantics. The description does not add much for captureData or reportSessionId, but the schema already provides adequate detail for those.

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 purpose: to re-set which visuals a bookmark hides, with specific behavior for listed vs. other visuals. It uses the specific verb 're-set' and the resource 'bookmark,' and the behavior distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_bookmark or delete_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 implies usage for updating an existing bookmark's hidden visuals, and the reset behavior is clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_bookmark_options or set_bookmark_data_state, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. This is sufficient context but misses explicit guidance.

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