Add a CherryTree node to bookmarks by its node ID. Includes byte-level audit and automatic rollback on failure.
Add a node to bookmarks.
Args: node_id: Node ID.
Returns: Confirmation message followed by byte-by-byte audit report. On XML parse failure, backup is restored automatically (ROLLBACK).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it adds meaningful operational detail: the return includes a confirmation message and byte-by-byte audit report, and XML parse failures trigger an automatic rollback/backup restore. This goes beyond a simple 'Add a node to bookmarks' statement.
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 short, labeled, and front-loaded with the core action. It avoids filler, though the returns/rollback details could have been compressed further without losing value.
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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, parameter, return, and failure behavior. Still, gaps in usage guidance and parameter sourcing keep it from being fully complete.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description needed to add meaning, but 'node_id: Node ID' only repeats the schema's property title. It does not explain how to obtain a node_id, what qualifies as a valid node, or what happens if the node is already bookmarked.
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: adding a node to bookmarks. The contrast with siblings like remove_bookmark and create_node makes its role unambiguous without needing to open the 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remove_bookmark or list_bookmarks. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context to help an agent decide to select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.