remove_bookmark

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

Annotations mark this as a non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) but non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation. The word 'Prepare' justifies why a removal tool is non-destructive — it stages rather than executes — and the approval gating adds context beyond the annotations. It still omits what happens to the bookmark pre-approval and whether the staged removal can be inspected.

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 no filler and the core action front-loaded. Efficient, though arguably terse given the untouched parameter ambiguity.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the approval workflow is covered. But for a 2-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves both inputs undocumented, which is a real gap for correct invocation.

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 0% for both required parameters (account, tweet_url), and the description adds no meaning for either. The agent must guess what 'account' identifies and the expected format of 'tweet_url' from the field names alone.

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+resource+scope ('Prepare removal of one bookmark'), which distinguishes it from sibling bookmark_tweet (adds) and get_bookmarks (reads). However, it never explicitly names those siblings, so the differentiation relies on the agent inferring it from the natural language.

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?

'Always requires approve_draft' establishes the mandatory follow-up step, which is genuine workflow guidance. It stops short of telling the agent when to prefer this over alternatives, but the required companion tool gives clear implied usage.

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