linkedin_add_skill

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: LinkedIn matches against its own taxonomy, implying possible normalization or rejection, and that skills affect recruiter search. It also discloses a hard maximum of 50 skills. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent anticipate side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause earns its place. No wasted words; the constraints and rationale are included without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description fully covers purpose, usage constraints, behavioral implications, and limits. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to successfully invoke the tool.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'skill' parameter. The description enriches this with specific guidance on naming conventions ('Machine Learning' over 'ML wizardry') and the 50-skill limit, adding meaning beyond the schema's simple description.

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 skill to the profile') with a specific resource (skill), and mentions key constraints (taxonomy matching, max 50). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'add_' tools (e.g., add_language) by naming the resource type explicitly.

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 concrete usage guidance: prefer standard names for recruiter search and respect a 50-skill limit. It lacks explicit exclusionary language or alternatives (e.g., 'use remove_skill to delete'), but the guidance is clear and directly relevant to when/how to use the tool safely.

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