Bookmarks

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

readOnlyHint=false already tells the agent this tool mutates, so the create/remove mention is consistent but not additive. It omits whether removal is permanent, what happens when creating a duplicate URL, and whether search covers folders as well as entries — meaningful gaps for a mutating 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary read operation and enumerates the mutations without waste. Nothing extraneous, though it could have spent one more clause on scope.

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?

With six parameters, a required action discriminator, and no output schema, the definition should indicate what search returns (list shape, limits) and what create/remove return. Those are missing, leaving the agent to discover result shapes empirically.

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% and each parameter already carries its own action binding and default. The description's parenthetical mapping of field to action merely restates the schema rather than adding syntax or constraints.

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 names three specific verbs (searches, creates, removes) bound to one clear resource (bookmarks), and the action enum matches them. It is distinguishable from history_search by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts the two.

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?

No statement of when to pick this over history_search or storage, and no prerequisites (e.g., signed-in state, folder existence). The action enum implies the modes, but selection guidance is absent.

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