update_bookmark

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'update', but does not explain whether tags are replaced or appended, whether the bookmark must exist, or any authentication requirements. The phrase 'category or tags' may misleadingly suggest exclusivity, while the schema allows both.

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 sentence that immediately conveys the action and target. There is no extraneous detail, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 the simple nature of the tool and 100% schema description coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks behavioral context around the update semantics (merge vs replace) and no output schema exists. This is a modest gap, not a severe deficiency.

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% for all three parameters, each with clear descriptions ('New tags', 'New category', 'The bookmark/tweet ID'). The tool description only restates 'category or tags', adding no additional semantics about how to use the parameters (e.g., whether both can be supplied simultaneously). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 uses the verb 'update' with a clear resource ('bookmark') and specific fields ('category or tags'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that delete, search, create collections, or add notes, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like add_notes or delete_bookmark. There are no mentions of prerequisites, exclusionary scenarios, or appropriate use cases.

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