ilinks_move_to_temp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — a capacity check on the temp box before the move, implying possible failure when full — but says nothing about auth, reversibility, or what happens if the ID is invalid or already in the temp box.

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 the action front-loaded and the precondition second. No filler, though the second sentence is slightly tangential to what the tool does.

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?

It is a single-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain failure modes and result. The capacity precondition is a good start, but reversibility and error behavior for a bad ID remain undocumented.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'id' as the bookmark ID. The description adds nothing beyond 'specified ID'; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (移入, move) and resource (书签, bookmark) plus the destination (暂存箱/uncategorized), which distinguishes it from siblings like ilinks_update_bookmark or ilinks_delete_bookmark. However it never contrasts itself with those siblings explicitly.

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 reader infers this is the way to un-categorize a single bookmark. There is no statement of when to prefer this over ilinks_update_bookmark or ilinks_delete_bookmark, and no note about batching (versus ilinks_batch_create_bookmarks).

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