Update basic profile details including first and last name, professional headline, bio, and location for job search workflows.
Update basic profile information (name, headline, bio, location).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bio | No | Bio/about section | |
| headline | No | Professional headline | |
| location | No | Location | |
| last_name | No | Last name | |
| first_name | No | First name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states whether this is a partial or full update, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, whether it requires authentication, or whether changes are reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the resource and affected fields front-loaded and no wasted words. Under-specification rather than verbosity is the issue, so conciseness itself is fine.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five all-optional parameters, the description is too thin. It omits partial-update semantics, auth expectations, and how it relates to the other update_profile_* and update_full_profile tools, leaving key behavioral questions unanswered.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters with concise descriptions. The description loosely maps to some fields ('name' collapsing first_name/last_name) but adds no format, validation, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (update) and resource (basic profile) and enumerates the covered fields, making it distinguishable from the more granular siblings like update_profile_skills and update_profile_employment. The word 'basic' plus the field list signals scope, though it never explicitly names which siblings it excludes.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this handles name/headline/bio/location while other update_profile_* tools cover the rest, and that update_full_profile is the broader option.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.