hookmark_connect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the bidirectional nature and outcome of the operation, but lacks details on permissions, error conditions, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. It adequately describes the core behavior but misses advanced operational context.

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 sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and input requirements, second explains outcome, third provides prerequisite guidance. Each sentence adds essential information, and the description is appropriately front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool's moderate complexity (bidirectional linking), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and prerequisites well, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or edge cases, which would be helpful for full contextual understanding.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that items must be referenced by 'file path, URL, or hook:// URL' and mentioning sibling tools for obtaining hook:// URLs, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Create a bidirectional hook'), the resource ('between two items'), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning alternative tools (hookmark_link, hookmark_frontmost) for obtaining required inputs. It goes beyond a tautology by explaining the bidirectional relationship and outcome.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('After this call, each item will appear in the other's hook list') and provides clear alternatives for prerequisite steps ('Use hookmark_link or hookmark_frontmost to obtain hook:// URLs first'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the unique linking function.

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