update_my_headline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond the schema by stating the tool is strictly locked to the authenticated account and refuses other profile targets. It does not detail auth or failure behavior, but for a simple single-field update the key security behavior is disclosed.

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?

Three short sections with no filler: purpose, security notice, and argument definition. The most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter update tool with an output schema, everything an agent needs to call it correctly is present: what it updates, on whose profile, and what the argument means. No return-value documentation is required because an output schema exists.

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 only provides the parameter name and type; the description's 'Args' section explains that 'headline' is the new text displayed under your name. This is exactly the kind of semantic enrichment the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update the headline on your own LinkedIn profile') and adds a clear scope boundary ('Does not accept any other profile target'). This is sufficient to distinguish it from sibling profile update tools like update_my_about or update_my_services.

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 makes it clear this applies only to your own profile and sets a hard exclusion ('Does not accept any other profile target'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this when...', but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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