update_my_services

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is strictly locked to the authenticated account, which is useful behavioral context. It also mentions the 500-character limit for description. However, it doesn't disclose whether the operation is additive, destructive, or reversible, what happens to existing services not mentioned, or whether the tool requires an active session. The security notice adds value but the mutation behavior is under-specified.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. The security notice is prominent and the parameter explanations are concise. The only minor issue is that the parameter explanations could be considered redundant with the schema names, but the examples and character limit justify their inclusion. No wasted sentences.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no required fields, no annotations, and an output schema exists. The description covers the parameters and the account-scoping constraint, which is the main contextual risk. However, it doesn't explain what the output schema contains, whether the operation is idempotent, or how it interacts with existing services (e.g., does removing a service also remove associated projects?). For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is adequate but not complete.

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 compensate. It does: it explains services_to_add and services_to_remove with concrete examples, and describes the description parameter with a character limit. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, which only provides types and defaults. The examples are particularly helpful for an agent deciding how to format list values.

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 verb ('Configure or update') and the resource ('client services listed on your own LinkedIn profile'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_my_headline and update_my_about by focusing on services. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it doesn't fully differentiate from other profile-update tools.

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 implies usage context: it's for updating services on your own profile, and the security notice clarifies it's locked to the authenticated account. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_my_about or add_experience, nor does it mention any prerequisites. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the primary use case, but exclusions and alternatives are missing.

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