edb_add_bookmark

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint: true and destructiveHint: false, indicating safe, repeatable writes. The description adds the return type ('str: Confirmation') and the concept of being equivalent to a plugin, but does not detail side effects like overwriting existing bookmarks or permission requirements. It complements annotations without contradiction.

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 concise at about 4 sentences, front-loading the purpose. The args/returns block is structured and easy to scan. It could be slightly more efficient by removing the 'Args:' heading since it is a single param, but overall it is well-organized.

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 tool with one parameter (an object), the description covers the basics: purpose, parameters with examples, and return type. However, it misses some behavioral details such as whether the bookmark overwrites an existing one with the same name, or that the address is optional (schema shows nullable with default empty). The presence of an output schema (from context) is not utilized to enhance completeness.

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?

The input schema has descriptions for both parameters ('Bookmark name (e.g., 'main_loop')' and 'Address to bookmark (e.g., '0x400000')'), so schema description coverage is not 0% as stated. The tool description adds clarity by repeating the examples and structuring the args in a readable format, adding value beyond the schema by explicitly associating 'name' with 'Name' and 'address' with 'Address' and providing concrete examples.

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 verb 'Save a named bookmark' and the resource 'address for quick navigation'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like edb_list_bookmarks and edb_remove_bookmark by being the add operation, and provides context ('Equivalent to EDB's Bookmarks plugin', 'useful for marking key locations during reverse engineering').

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('for quick navigation', 'marking key locations during reverse engineering'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., edb_add_comment, edb_label_address). It implies a use case but lacks exclusions.

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