delete_bookmark

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'removes,' implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, side effects, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every part of the sentence ('Removes the tweet from bookmarks') contributes essential information about the tool's action and target.

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 complexity (a destructive mutation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, it leaves gaps in behavioral and usage context that could hinder effective tool selection.

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 description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (a single 'tweet_id' parameter). With 0% schema description coverage, the baseline is low, but the description doesn't compensate by explaining the parameter's meaning, format, or constraints. However, since there's only one parameter and its purpose is implied by the tool name, a score of 3 reflects minimal adequacy.

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 ('removes') and resource ('the tweet from bookmarks'), making the tool's purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_tweet' or 'delete_all_bookmarks', which would require mentioning it's specifically for bookmarks rather than tweet deletion or bulk operations.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the tweet must be bookmarked first), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'delete_all_bookmarks' for bulk removal or 'unfavorite_tweet' for similar actions on favorites.

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