update_bookmark

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

Annotations already establish that this is mutating and destructive, so the description need not restate that. It adds the important behavioral trait that unspecified fields are left untouched and that the operation targets exactly one bookmark. It does not go into null-clearing semantics or side effects, so it provides modest added transparency beyond the annotations.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with no filler. It earns its single sentence.

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 output schema and annotations, the core call contract is mostly covered: target by bookmark_id, update only supplied fields, one bookmark. However, with a 10-parameter schema and 0% description coverage, a bit more detail on null-clearing and parameter interactions would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must supply the key semantics; it does supply the crucial 'only supplied fields' rule, which clarifies why optional defaults don't mean all fields are set. Individual parameter names are mostly self-explanatory, but there is no explanation of ambiguous values like explicit null versus omission or what reparse_metadata does.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') with a clear resource ('bookmark') and a precise scope: only the fields the caller supplies, and only one bookmark. This differentiates it from create_bookmark, get_bookmark, and search_bookmarks without needing the parameter schema.

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 wording clearly situates the tool as the modification path for an existing bookmark, versus listing/searching/getting or creating. It does not name an alternative explicitly or state exclusions, but the partial-update phrasing gives the agent the relevant condition for choosing it.

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