insert_bookmark

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

Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'insert' and provides parameter hints, but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or what happens if the bookmark already exists. It doesn't describe the return value or any error conditions.

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 very brief: one sentence plus an argument list. It is front-loaded with the action and then lists parameters. No unnecessary words, but it may be too terse to be fully helpful, though that's not a concision flaw but a completeness issue.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema explanation. The description lacks information about the effect on the document, prerequisites beyond doc_id, whether it's reversible, and what the tool returns. An agent lacks enough context to call it safely and correctly.

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 must explain parameters. It provides brief definitions: doc_id as 'Document ID from open_document', name as 'Bookmark name', command as 'Bookmark command (0=insert)', and type as 'Bookmark type'. This adds some meaning but leaves type and command values under-specified, and doesn't explain defaults or requiredness beyond 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?

The description states the verb 'Insert' and the resource 'a bookmark' with location 'at current position', which clearly defines what the tool does. It is not a tautology and is distinct from sibling tools that insert text, pictures, etc., though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from them.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, contexts, or exclusions. The reference to 'doc_id from open_document' implies a prerequisite but that's more about parameter sourcing than usage context.

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