Delete Bookmark

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety class is known. The description still earns credit by disclosing what actually gets destroyed (page copy, highlights, files), that it is irreversible, and that user confirmation is expected — details the annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences ordered by importance: what happens, that it is irreversible plus the safer alternative, then the confirmation requirement. No filler and nothing buried.

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 destructive, single-parameter tool with an output schema already documenting returns, the description covers the cascade scope, irreversibility, the non-destructive alternative, and the confirmation step. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already explains the id comes "from another tool." The description adds no format, source-tool, or validation detail beyond that, so it neither compensates for nor extends the schema.

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 and resource ("Permanently delete a bookmark") and immediately scopes the blast radius ("with its stored page copy, highlights and files"), which is more than the name conveys. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling update_bookmark, so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: "prefer update_bookmark(archived=true) to just hide it." It also adds a procedural gate, "Confirm with the user first," which is actionable usage guidance rather than a restatement.

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