bookmarks_add

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the basic action, omitting details like idempotency, permissions, or side effects (e.g., whether an existing bookmark is replaced). The description fails to provide necessary behavioral context.

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 extremely concise (one sentence). While brevity is positive, it sacrifices clarity for a tool with 6 parameters. A well-structured description would be longer to cover parameter roles and usage, so the conciseness is not optimal.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not cover parameter meanings, constraints, or differentiate from alternatives. An output schema exists but its content is not reflected; the agent lacks context to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the description should compensate. It does not explain any parameter beyond the implied channel_id. Required parameters like 'title' are not even in the schema properties, adding confusion. The description adds minimal value beyond parameter names.

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?

Description states 'Add a bookmark to a channel' – a clear verb-resource pair. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like bookmarks_edit or bookmarks_remove, and lacks specificity on what type of bookmark (e.g., message, link). The purpose is clear but not sufficiently detailed.

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?

No usage guidelines provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., bookmarks_list, bookmarks_remove) or any prerequisites (e.g., need for entity_id or link). This omission makes it hard for an agent to decide correctly.

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