linkedin_add_language

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, indicating a non-destructive write operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as whether adding a duplicate language replaces the existing entry, whether it requires special permissions, or any side effects. Since the description provides no value beyond the annotations, a low score is appropriate.

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 description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 simple 2-parameter mutation with annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks any information about return values (no output schema), behavior on duplicate entries, or success/failure indications. These gaps make it adequate but not complete for a fully informed agent.

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?

The schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions: 'language' has a clear example, while 'proficiency' only has an enum. The description mentions 'optional proficiency level', which clarifies optionality but adds no further semantic detail about the proficiency values. This is a modest addition, but does not fully compensate for the schema's lack of explanation for the enum meanings.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Add') and a specific resource ('a language to the profile'), and the optional proficiency level adds relevant detail. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like linkedin_add_skill or linkedin_add_certification by explicitly naming the target as 'language'.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of contexts (e.g., when a user requests language addition), prerequisites, or clarification that it is the correct tool for languages rather than skills or certifications. The usage is only implied by the name and simple description.

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