bookmark_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation but says nothing about idempotency (what happens if the job is already bookmarked), required auth/permissions, or whether the bookmark is reversible — significant omissions for a write operation with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single short sentence with the action and key front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing behavioral context rather than pure economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool has only one simple parameter. Still, for an unannotated mutation whose behavior on duplicate bookmarks and permission requirements is unknown, the description is only minimally 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains job_id fully. The phrase 'by its ID' merely restates the parameter rather than adding format, source, or validity information, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (save/bookmark) and resource (job listing) plus the lookup key, so the action is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like mark_job_as_applied or delete_job, which operate on the same job entities, so it falls 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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no context about why an agent would bookmark versus apply to or delete a job, and no exclusions. With siblings like mark_job_as_applied and auto_apply_job in the same family, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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