Endorse a skill

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only indicates that the action is a mutation ('endorses'), but it does not disclose reversibility, permission requirements, side effects, or what the response will look like.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool and every word contributes meaning.

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 tool with three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits parameter roles, especially vanityName, and provides no behavioral or result context, so an agent may not be able to call it correctly without additional assumptions.

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 partially does by making clear that a skill is being endorsed on a profile, which maps to skillId and profileUrn, but the meaning of vanityName is left completely unexplained.

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 the action (endorses) and the object (a skill on someone's profile), so the core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like add_skill or remove_skill, which prevents a score of 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus add_skill or other profile-related actions, nor any prerequisites such as whether the target must be a connection. Any usage context must be inferred entirely from the name and the brief description.

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