update_job_preferences

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add the useful account-scope constraint, but it does not state whether omitted fields are reset, whether the update is partial or full replacement, whether an active session is required, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 compact and well organized: purpose first, then a security notice, then a clear Args breakdown. Every line adds value and there is no redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, parameter meanings, and account scope, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. Still, without annotations it leaves important operational context unstated, such as partial-update behavior, authentication prerequisites, and what happens if an empty argument list is provided.

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%, yet the description compensates thoroughly by explaining every parameter, providing examples, and listing the expected values for location_types and employment_types. This gives the agent the semantic meaning that the sparse schema lacks.

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 states a specific action ('Configure') and a clear resource ('your Open to work job preferences on LinkedIn'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like update_my_headline or update_my_about because the target is uniquely identified.

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 purpose implies this tool should be used when updating the authenticated user's LinkedIn job preferences, and the security notice clarifies it applies only to /in/me. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions beyond the account-scope constraint.

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