Bookmark a status

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

Given the annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, the description adds useful context about the visibility of bookmarks versus favourites. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 only two sentences and leads with the core action. The first sentence repeats the title, a minor redundancy, but the second sentence earns its place by adding differentiating context, so there is no meaningful bloat.

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 simple one-required-parameter action, the description plus schema fully equips an agent to invoke it: id and account are documented, the privacy behavior is stated, and annotations cover side-effect expectations. No output schema is present, and none is needed for correct invocation.

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%: id and account are both clearly documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Bookmark a status') and immediately distinguishes the action from favourites by noting bookmarks are private, which separates it from the sibling favourite_status tool. Even though the first sentence mirrors the title, the added privacy scope makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 privacy contrast ('unlike favourites, which the author can see') gives clear situational guidance: use bookmarks when the action should be private and favourites when author visibility is acceptable. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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