ilinks_update_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 says 'update' but does not disclose that four fields (id, folder_id, title, url) are required — implying a near-full replacement rather than a partial edit — nor does it mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, naming the resource first and then the affected fields. It is efficient but arguably too thin given the tool's mutation semantics.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits update semantics (partial vs. full replacement given 4 required params), error behavior for invalid folder IDs, and the alternative for moving to trash. The schema covers parameter details, but behavioral context is largely absent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including the folder_id caveat about 0 and ilinks_move_to_temp. The description only restates the field list at a high level and adds no syntax, constraints, or defaults 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 states a specific verb (更新) and resource (书签) plus the field set it touches (标题、网址、所属文件夹、备注). This clearly separates it from create_bookmark and delete_bookmark, though it does not name 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus ilinks_create_bookmark, ilinks_move_to_temp, or ilinks_update_folder. The only routing hint ('若要移至暂存箱请使用 ilinks_move_to_temp') lives in the schema, not the description, and the description never mentions it.

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