shiori_update_bookmark_fields

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the read-modify-write pattern (fetch, modify, send full payload), which is good. However, it does not explicitly state that unspecified fields are preserved or mention any side effects or auth requirements.

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?

A single 18-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action 'Patch common bookmark fields' and efficiently describes the internal process with no wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema and the complexity of the tool (patch operation with 6 parameters), the description is adequate but could be more complete by indicating the return type (e.g., updated bookmark) or error handling.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it just refers to 'common bookmark fields' without elaborating on individual parameters.

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 'Patch common bookmark fields', clearly indicating a partial update operation. It distinguishes from the sibling 'shiori_update_bookmark' (full update) by implication, though 'common' is somewhat vague.

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 implies use for patching specific fields without a full payload, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over 'shiori_update_bookmark' or mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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