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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only mutation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds value by warning that provider support varies by field and instructing to pass only explicitly requested fields, which are behavioral nuances not present in annotations. It does not cover side effects or return behavior, but given the annotation coverage, this is a strong addition.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every clause adds useful information: the action, the target, the field-passing rule, and the provider variation caveat.

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 output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., updated profile vs. success status) or handle edge cases like partial field support failures. The 'provider support varies' caveat hints at inconsistency but does not explain fallback behavior. It is adequate for basic selection but leaves some operational 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 schema description coverage is only 17% (only account_id is described), and the description does not compensate. It refers generically to 'supported fields' but does not explain the meaning or expected format of summary, headline, location, last_name, or first_name. With six parameters and low schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without enough parameter-level semantics.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('supported fields of the user's own LinkedIn profile'), which distinguishes it from read-only tools like linkedin_get_my_profile and other update tools. It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not name sibling tools to further differentiate.

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 an important usage rule ('Only pass fields explicitly requested by the user') and notes provider support variability, which helps an agent decide what to send. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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