linkedin_cancel_action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by clarifying scope: the cancellation is irreversible for pending items but does NOT touch anything already published, which prevents an agent from assuming it retracts live content.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the scope caveat immediately following. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter cancel tool whose annotations cover the safety profile and which has no output schema, the description supplies the essential behavioral context. It omits error/edge behavior (e.g. cancelling an already-executed proposal) but nothing critical to correct invocation 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% for the single parameter, so the description carries the burden and it says nothing about proposal_id. The name is largely self-evident and the 32-char length constraint hints at an opaque ID, so it remains minimally viable but uncompensated.

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 (cancel) and resource (pending proposal) and adds the operative effect ('so it can never be executed'). This clearly separates it from linkedin_execute_action and linkedin_prepare_action without needing to open 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?

The phrase 'pending proposal' implies the applicable state and the description scopes the outcome, but it never states when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g. how it relates to linkedin_status or linkedin_list_actions) or what preconditions must hold. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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