delete_all_bookmarks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete all bookmarks' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this requires special permissions, confirmation steps, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Delete all bookmarks' is front-loaded and perfectly concise for a tool with no parameters. Every word earns its place by clearly stating the action and target.

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 tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (which might handle return values), the description is incomplete. It fails to address safety concerns, usage context, or behavioral expectations, making it inadequate for a mutation tool that could have significant side effects.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4 as it adequately handles the empty parameter case without introducing confusion.

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 clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('all bookmarks'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'delete_bookmark' (which likely deletes individual bookmarks), missing an opportunity for sibling differentiation that would warrant a score of 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tool 'delete_bookmark', it's unclear whether this tool is for bulk operations, irreversible actions, or specific contexts. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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