Mark a job locally

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but do not explain WHAT is mutated. The description supplies the critical missing context: this is a local-state-only write with no external side effect, plus a durable consequence ('so it is not shown again'). That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations, not a restatement.

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?

Front-loads the most decision-relevant fact (local only, no external action) in a bracketed prefix, then states the resource and the one risky enum rule. No filler sentences; every clause carries routing or behavioral information.

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?

Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists, and the local-vs-remote distinction is fully covered. Minor gaps remain: no mention of overwrite/idempotency behavior when re-marking the same job, and no note on what happens to the url parameter's sibling linkage.

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 coverage is 50% (url documented, status enum undocumented). The description compensates by explaining the enum semantics ('viewed, considering or rejected') and adding a decision rule for the non-obvious value 'rejected', which the schema's bare enum cannot convey.

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 ('Sets the LOCAL tracking status of a job') and immediately scopes it as a local-only write that performs NO external action. This differentiates it from the mutating siblings linkedin_save_job and linkedin_unsave_job, which an agent would otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance, including a strong conditional rule: use "rejected" only when the USER said they are not interested. It also clarifies the negative scope (does not touch LinkedIn), though it does not name a specific alternative tool to use for external actions.

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