firefox_bookmarks

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

The description adds real behavior beyond the annotations: a runtime permission ('optional browser permission enabled in the panel') gates the tool, and results are scope-limited ('unauthorized origins are hidden'). What it omits is what happens on a duplicate create, and it never acknowledges the mutation side of 'create' despite destructiveHint=true in the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the primary capability front-loaded before the constraint. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 low-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, permissions, and visibility scoping, but skips per-action required fields and says nothing about what a search returns or how results are ordered/limited. An agent could still mis-invoke create without a URL.

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 schema already documents url, query, and title (75% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond that by mapping parameters to actions implicitly: 'search' pairs with a text query, 'create' pairs with a URL. It does not state that url is conditionally required for create or whether title is optional there.

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 two concrete verbs and the resource: 'Search bookmarks or create one for an authorized URL.' That is specific enough for an agent to distinguish it from firefox_history or firefox_downloads. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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 two actions imply when to use each, and 'for an authorized URL' hints that create needs a URL. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus firefox_history for browsing history, nor any statement about prerequisites or ordering. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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