delete_bookmark

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The word 'permanently' discloses irreversibility, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, or failure behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core action and key qualifier (permanently) in a minimal, front-loaded format.

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 simple one-parameter delete tool, the description and schema together provide adequate context: what is being deleted, the required parameter, and the irreversible nature. The lack of an output schema and detail on edge cases is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the single parameter with a clear description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Delete' and a clear resource 'bookmark', with 'permanently' clarifying the irreversibility. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_bookmark and get_highlights.

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?

The description provides clear context that this is for permanently deleting a bookmark, making it obvious when to use it. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives, but no exclusions are needed given the tool's specific destructive purpose.

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