linkedin_add_project

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation. The description adds no further behavioral details such as authentication requirements, profile visibility, or potential duplication. It does not contradict the annotations, but also does not enrich them beyond the obvious 'add' action.

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 sentence that directly states the action and purpose. It is front-loaded with the essential information and contains no redundant words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 straightforward mutation tool with fully documented parameters and annotations, this description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It omits details about return values, but since there is no output schema and the operation is simple, this is not a significant gap. The description could mention potential side effects, but the annotations already indicate a write operation.

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 all 7 parameters are already explained in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning or clarify formats, dates, or constraints. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Add a project to the profile') and provides specific use cases ('portfolio work, open source and side projects'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like linkedin_add_skill or linkedin_add_experience, which are also in the same family.

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 gives clear context by explicitly mentioning when it's useful ('portfolio work, open source and side projects'). It does not name alternatives or specify when-not-to-use, but the context and tool name sufficiently guide the agent. No exclusions are stated, but the use cases are clear.

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