linkding_delete_bookmark

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description adds the valuable dry-run preview mechanism and the endpoint path, which is context beyond the annotations. It does not state whether the deletion is permanent or recoverable, which is the one behavior an agent would still want.

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?

Three short fragments: action, endpoint, and the critical safety modifier, with the dry-run detail placed where it will be read. Nothing is padded and nothing essential is buried.

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?

For a two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description and annotations together cover idempotency, destructiveness, and the dry-run workflow. The gap is what happens after execution (return payload, irreversibility, auth requirements), which an agent would still have to infer.

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%, with both params documented including the const-true constraint and dry-run semantics on confirm, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description's "omit confirm for a dry-run" merely restates the schema's explanation of confirm rather than adding new meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a bookmark") plus the underlying endpoint, which cleanly separates it from the sibling deletes (delete_tag, delete_bundle, delete_asset) by resource. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative action such as archive_bookmark for agents weighing soft vs. hard removal.

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 dry-run instruction ("Omit confirm for a dry-run") gives real procedural guidance on how to invoke safely, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over archive_bookmark/unarchive_bookmark or what preconditions (ownership, permissions) must hold. Usage is implied rather than framed as a decision rule.

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