delete_all_bookmarks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action ('deletes') but doesn't clarify what 'simulated' means operationally—whether it's a test mode, requires confirmation, or has other safety mechanisms. No information about permissions, rate limits, or response behavior is included, leaving significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise—a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. Every part ('Deletes all bookmarks') earns its place, and the parenthetical '(simulated)' adds critical context efficiently. No structural issues or redundancy are present.

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 destructive nature and zero parameters, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on the 'simulated' aspect, output behavior (though an output schema exists), and safety considerations. With no annotations and a simple input schema, the description should provide more behavioral context to fully guide the agent.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's action. This meets the baseline for parameter-less tools, though it doesn't add extra semantic context beyond the schema.

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') and target resource ('all bookmarks'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'delete_bookmark' by specifying 'all' rather than individual deletions. However, the parenthetical '(simulated)' slightly reduces specificity by indicating this might not be a real deletion operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_bookmark' for individual deletions. There's no mention of prerequisites, warnings about data loss, or contextual recommendations for bulk deletion scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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