Prepare a profile change

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

Discloses beyond the annotations that it mutates only local state, performs no external action, reads the current LinkedIn value, and returns a PENDING action rather than applying it. This resolves the tension around readOnlyHint=false (it does create a local pending action) rather than contradicting it.

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-loaded bracketed scope marker plus tight sentences, but the no-apply constraint is restated twice ('does NOT apply' and 'cannot apply profile changes'), which is mild redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return-shape detail is unnecessary, yet the description still usefully says it returns current vs proposed as a pending action. For a two-field local-state tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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, and it does: it names the two valid fields and gives field-specific limits (220 for headline, 2600 for about) that the schema only captures as a generic maxLength of 2600. It does not elaborate on proposedValue formatting, so it stops short of full compensation.

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 (prepares) and resource (user's own LinkedIn headline or about section), and explicitly demarcates the PREPARE-only scope versus applying. An agent can distinguish it from apply-capable siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (to produce a preview) and when it must not be treated as final, routing the user to manual application. It also sets the boundary 'never propose changes the user did not ask for', leaving no inference needed.

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