linkedin_profile

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write, and the description adds real behavior beyond that: it emits a Markdown file to copy from, returns `path`, and returns `left_out` for bullets that didn't fit. It also discloses that approved headline/About are 'checked like a letter' and replace the draft. It doesn't say whether a re-run overwrites a prior file, which is the main remaining gap for a file-writing tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the prose is tangled — the final sentence about re-calling with approved headline/About ('checked like a letter') is convoluted and would read better as a discrete instruction. Sentences earn their place but are not tight.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the return contract (`path`, `left_out`), which is what an agent needs. It is largely complete for a 6-parameter write tool; overwrite/idempotency behavior and the src of skills data are the only notable omissions.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning the schema doesn't carry: `headline` and `about` are the approved/polished versions that supersede drafts and are persisted to the file. It also frames `variant` as the driver of per-position descriptions and skills filtering.

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 names a specific verb and resource set: it writes headline, About, per-position descriptions, and skills for a variant, within LinkedIn's limits, to a Markdown file. That scope is specific enough to distinguish it from build_cv, build_letter, and the set_* mutators in the sibling list.

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?

It states the triggering context explicitly ('Use it when the person updates their LinkedIn profile') and gives a second, conditional use case: re-call after approval with the polished headline/About. It does not name any alternative tool or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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