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

Goes well beyond annotations: discloses the personal connector token requirement, the destructive-free but mutating nature of the write, the two-step preview/confirm protocol, and three distinct error outcomes with what happens to existing data in each case. All of this is consistent with readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loads purpose and the no-op conditions before the mechanics of the two-step flow, which is the right order. It is a dense single paragraph, and the parenthetical error-code insertions make it slightly harder to scan, but no sentence is padding.

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-shape detail is optional, yet the description still signals ok/outcome/sentence. With annotations, full schema coverage, and a three-parameter surface, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly on first try.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that a call without confirm saves nothing and returns a confirmToken, and that the token must accompany confirm=true — semantics the schema states tersely. The `myLinkedin` constraint (linkedin.com/in/ URL shape) is also reinforced.

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 and resource ('keeps the person's own LinkedIn profile link on their own ... business card') plus the gating condition ('when the card has no LinkedIn link yet'). Scope is narrowed explicitly ('It changes only the person's own card'), which distinguishes it from card-related siblings, though no sibling tool is named by name.

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?

Gives clear conditions for action versus no-op: an existing identical link returns 'already saved', a different link yields DIFFERENT_ON_FILE, and a malformed link yields LINKEDIN_URL_INVALID. The two-step confirm flow is spelled out, but no alternative tool (e.g. event_card_links) is suggested for the cases this tool declines.

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