update_bookmark

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update an existing bookmark' without explaining partial update semantics, how null/omitted fields are handled, or any side effects on related data (e.g., tags). This is insufficient for a tool with 9 mutable fields.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words, achieving maximum brevity. It is slightly repetitive of the tool name (update_bookmark) but otherwise compact and reasonably structured.

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?

Despite a rich schema with full parameter descriptions and an output schema, the one-sentence description leaves out essential context about update behavior—such as whether unspecified fields remain unchanged or are reset to defaults. The schema describes individual fields but not the overall merge/replace semantics, so the combination still lacks completeness.

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%, meaning each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update an existing bookmark.' clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (existing bookmark), distinguishing it from create_bookmark. However, it does not explicitly contrast with related sibling tools like archive_bookmark or add_to_reading_list, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 alternatives. The description does not mention that it is for modifying existing bookmarks as opposed to archiving, unarchiving, or adding to reading lists, leaving usage context entirely to the user.

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