ilinks_delete_bookmark

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the side effect that deletion immediately frees one bookmark quota slot, but it omits whether the deletion is permanent/irreversible, what permissions are needed, and what happens if the ID does not exist.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the deletion action is stated first and the quota consequence follows. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action and its main side effect on quota, which is enough to call it correctly. The main remaining gap is the lack of any statement on irreversibility or error behavior.

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?

There is a single required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already documenting 'id' as '要删除的书签 ID'. The description restates this at the same level of detail without adding format or source hints (e.g., how to obtain the ID), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('删除...书签') scoped to a given ID, so the agent can tell exactly what it does. It does not differentiate from siblings such as ilinks_move_to_temp or ilinks_delete_folder, which a stronger definition would name.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool deletes a bookmark, so it is used when a bookmark must be removed. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no mention of the alternative ilinks_move_to_temp that would apply if the user only wants to free quota temporarily.

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