add_bookmark

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses substantial behavior: auto-backup to prev/anchor slots in .ks4w-backups, the specific effect of backup=False, atomic validated save, and refusal to operate on documents open in Word. It does not cover duplicate-name behavior, but this is a strong disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then packs behavioral details into a second sentence. Every phrase earns its place, though the density might make it slightly harder to parse quickly.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no schema descriptions, the description provides a solid baseline: purpose, backup behavior, and a safety constraint. Still, it omits the meaning of 'occurrence' and duplicate-name handling, which an agent would need to confidently invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains the backup parameter's rotation behavior and hints at anchor_text, but it never describes 'occurrence' (a non-obvious integer) or the exact format of 'file_path'. This leaves significant semantic gaps.

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 a specific verb ('Bookmark') and resource ('a text range'), and clarifies its intended role as the target for add_cross_reference. This distinguishes it from the many other bookkeeping and reference tools among the siblings.

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 parenthetical '(the target add_cross_reference points at)' implies when this tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as list_bookmarks or add_cross_reference. Usage context is clear enough to infer, but not fully stated.

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