update_my_about

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses an important security/auth constraint ('Strictly locked to your authenticated account'), which is useful. However, it doesn't state whether the existing About section is replaced, what side effects occur, or any permission details beyond being authenticated.

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 very short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. The security notice is placed prominently, and the parameter explanation is minimal but sufficient.

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 simple one-parameter update tool, the description covers the essential facts: what is updated, whose profile, and what the parameter means. It doesn't explicitly state that the summary overwrites the existing About text, but 'New bio/summary text' implies replacement. An output schema exists, so the lack of return-value detail is acceptable.

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%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It does: 'summary: New bio/summary text for your About section' adds meaning beyond the raw schema by explaining that this is the new replacement text. It could add length limits or formatting details, but it sufficiently compensates for the missing schema description.

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 exact resource ('the About / summary section on your own LinkedIn profile'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like update_my_headline by naming a different profile section, and 'your own' establishes scope.

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 clear context: this tool is strictly for updating your own profile's About section. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or say when not to use it, but the scope is unambiguous enough that an agent won't confuse it with other update tools.

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