linkedin_save_job

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds the dual behavior of saving and removing, which is valuable beyond the tool name. However, it does not mention edge cases like duplicate saves or prerequisite authentication, though annotations cover the safety profile partially.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys both save and remove actions. No wasted words, perfectly concise.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema and annotations provide sufficient context. The tool's behavior is clear, and the schema covers parameter specifics. Slight gap: no mention of expected response or side effects if already saved, but overall complete enough.

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%, with both parameters fully described (job format alternatives, saved boolean with default). The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool saves a job to the user's saved list or removes it, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_post and get_saved_jobs, which handle different resources or actions.

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 tool's use case is implied by its name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions (e.g., 'use get_saved_jobs to view saved jobs'). The usage context is clear but not elaborated.

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