delete_bookmark

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'Remove,' implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The output schema exists but isn't described, leaving behavioral traits unclear.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. It immediately conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, which is appropriate for a simple tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is minimal but covers the basic action. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the lack of parameter details and behavioral context leaves gaps. It's adequate as a bare minimum but lacks depth for safe and effective use.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the single parameter 'tweet_id' is undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about this parameter—no explanation of what 'tweet_id' represents, its format, or where to obtain it. This fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving the parameter's meaning ambiguous.

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 action ('Remove') and target resource ('a tweet from bookmarks'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_all_bookmarks' or 'delete_tweet', but the specificity of 'from bookmarks' provides some implicit distinction.

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 like 'delete_all_bookmarks' for bulk removal or 'unfavorite_tweet' for similar tweet interactions. It mentions neither prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing bookmark) nor contextual constraints, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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