linkedin_set_open_to_work

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. The description adds value by clarifying the toggle behavior and the effect of enabling versus disabling, including visibility options (everyone vs. recruiters). It does not contradict annotations, and the additional context around the recruiter-only visibility is helpful.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, and the second explains optional configurations. Every word earns its place; no filler or 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 straightforward toggle tool with a well-documented schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the main effect, optional parameters, and visibility semantics. Lack of an output schema is not an issue here, and return values are not essential for this type of state change.

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 detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds a small semantic layer by stating that titles and locations are relevant 'when enabling' and that visibility determines badge audience, but it largely repeats schema information, so the 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 tool's function: 'Turn the "Open To Work" signal on or off.' It names the specific resource and action, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like linkedin_update_headline or linkedin_add_experience by focusing on this unique signal.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when controlling the Open To Work state. It explains that enabling allows specification of job titles, locations, and visibility. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though siblings make the tool's unique role evident.

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