Delete bookmark

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true. The description adds context beyond that: 'No confirmation token' signals immediate irreversible action (though recoverable), and it explains the recovery path via create_bookmark. No contradictions with 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?

The description is two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second adds behavioral nuance and recovery context. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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 delete tool with two required parameters and a destructiveHint annotation, the description adequately covers purpose and recovery. It does not explain the return value (no output schema), but this is forgivable for a delete operation. The completeness is high given the tool's simplicity.

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%, with both parameters already described (time as seconds, library_item_id as from list_library_items). The tool description does not add further parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Deletes the bookmark at a given position') with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by mentioning that 'create_bookmark restores it', reinforcing the delete/recover pair.

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 description provides context that the deletion has no confirmation token and can be reversed via create_bookmark, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_bookmark or list_bookmarks. The usage is implied but not exclusionary.

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