bookmark_post

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 successfully communicates: 1) authentication requirement ('REQUIRES AUTHENTICATION'), 2) that this is a write operation (implied by 'Bookmark' and 'Returns a Bookmark object'), 3) the return type ('Returns a Bookmark object'), and 4) the purpose ('save interesting posts for later reference'). It doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, or idempotency, but covers the essential behavioral aspects for a bookmarking 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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, authentication requirement, parameter details, prerequisite, return value, and usage guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the auto_delete_preference explanation is somewhat lengthy. It's appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool with authentication requirements.

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 that there's an output schema (implied by 'Returns a Bookmark object'), the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers authentication requirements, parameter semantics, and usage context effectively. The main gap is lack of information about reminder_type values, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use this tool correctly alongside its sibling read-only tools.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by: 1) providing a clear enumeration of auto_delete_preference options with explanations (0-3 with meanings), 2) specifying ISO format for reminder_at, and 3) clarifying that name is 'Optional label/name for the bookmark'. This goes well beyond what the schema provides, though it doesn't explain reminder_type values.

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 specific action ('Bookmark a post for later reference') and distinguishes it from all sibling tools which are primarily get/read operations (e.g., get_topic_posts, get_user_actions). It identifies the resource (post) and verb (bookmark) precisely.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Must call login() first' (prerequisite), 'Use to save interesting posts for later reference' (when-to-use), and distinguishes this as a write/mutation tool versus the many read-only sibling tools. It clearly indicates this is for saving posts versus the sibling tools which retrieve information.

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