linkding_update_bookmark

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

Annotations only declare write/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds substantive behavior: omitted fields stay unchanged, auto-tagging rules merge into tag_names on every update, and no-confirm yields a dry-run preview. These are exactly the non-obvious mutation traits an agent needs.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying load-bearing information (PATCH/PUT, unchanged fields, auto-tag merge, dry-run). The default-verb behavior is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema, and the description covers the highest-risk behaviors (PUT vs PATCH, mutation gating, auto-tag side effect). Some field-level semantics for the untagged optional params remain undocumented, but the critical call-correctness info is present.

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 45% (<50%), so the description must compensate, and it explains confirm, replace, tag_names, and url-required-on-replace. However it says nothing about the other fields (notes, title, shared, unread, description, is_archived) which lack schema descriptions, leaving a real gap.

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 ('Update a bookmark') and immediately specifies the PATCH-vs-PUT semantics. No sibling in the list shares this resource, so sibling differentiation is naturally low-risk, but it doesn't explicitly say how it differs from e.g. linkding_archive_bookmark or update_bundle.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance: use replace=true to send PUT, omit confirm for a dry-run. That tells the agent how to invoke two non-obvious paths. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over linkding_archive_bookmark/unarchive_bookmark for flag changes.

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