linkedin_edit_profile_section

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds that edits are in place, index-based, and partial-update only, which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose error behavior for invalid indices or what happens to unspecified fields beyond 'not changed', lacking deeper side-effect disclosure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds operational value—state main purpose, prerequisite, and update semantics.

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 description explains the core workflow (fetch profile to get index, edit in place, partial update), which is sufficient for a 3-parameter tool. It lacks only error-case details, but with no output schema and good schema coverage, this is not a critical gap.

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%; all parameters (section, index, fields) are described in the schema, including the recognized keys for fields. The description reinforces the index semantics by telling the agent to call get_profile first, but this is more usage guidance than new parameter information. Baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Edit' with the resource 'existing profile entry', clearly distinguishing from sibling add/delete tools. The 'in place' phrase and zero-based index addressing clarify its scope.

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 explicitly instructs to call linkedin_get_profile first to see the current order, providing a clear prerequisite. It also explains partial update semantics ('Only the fields you supply are changed'), but does not name alternative tools for adding or deleting entries, so it's clear context without explicit exclusions.

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