linkedin_remove_skill

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the specific consequence of removing endorsements, which is not captured by the annotations. This extra detail clarifies the scope of the destructive action, though it doesn't mention the confirm parameter (which is in the schema).

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 front-loads the primary action and includes a meaningful secondary effect. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a simple removal tool with a destructive annotation and a required confirmation parameter documented in the schema, the description sufficiently covers the core behavior and the endorsement side-effect. It doesn't need to explain return values since no output schema exists, and the tool's complexity is low.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'skill' and 'confirm' having descriptive comments. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') with a clear resource ('skill from the profile') and adds a distinctive detail (endorsements) that differentiates it from related tools like linkedin_add_skill and linkedin_delete_profile_section.

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 implies the use case (removing a skill) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The context is clear from the name and siblings, but the description itself lacks explicit usage direction.

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