Remove a bookmark

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

Annotations already supply idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the title. It does not disclose that removing a bookmark is non-destructive to the status, that it is safe to call on an already-unbookmarked status, or any account/authorization implications.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately minimal for a simple tool, though it is identical to the title and therefore adds no new information.

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 simple action, thorough schema, and helpful annotations, the essential information for a basic call is present. However, the description does not mention what happens when the bookmark does not exist, whether the underlying status is affected, or what a successful response looks like, leaving minor but real gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage: 'id' is described as 'The status id' and 'account' explains allowed handle formats and default behavior. Since the schema fully documents both parameters, the description's lack of parameter detail is acceptable, earning the baseline 3.

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 'Remove a bookmark.' clearly states a specific verb and resource, making the intent unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like bookmark_status or get_bookmarks, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention that the status must currently be bookmarked, and no indication that bookmark_status is the complementary operation. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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