linkedin_update_headline

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful context by explaining the headline's importance and the maximum length (220 chars), which is also in the schema but reinforced. It does not contradict annotations and adds behavioral context beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 ('Replace the headline'), and every clause earns its place. It includes essential context (visibility, max length) without unnecessary fluff. This is an exemplary model of concise, high-value description.

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 is complete for this low-complexity tool. It explains the purpose, the primary action, and even provides strategic guidance on content. The schema handles parameter specifics, and the lack of output schema is appropriate for a simple mutation. No gaps in needed context.

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 covers both parameters with clear descriptions, including the conditional behavior of the 'industry' parameter. The description does not add any new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not harm, but also does not elevate the understanding beyond the schema.

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 action ('Replace the headline') and specifies the resource ('the signed-in user's profile'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by targeting the headline field specifically, and even adds domain context about the headline's visibility in search results, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to update the profile headline. It does not explicitly name alternatives like 'linkedin_update_about' or 'linkedin_update_location', but the specificity of 'headline' makes the use case unmistakable. The added content guidance ('prefer a specific role + specialism') is more about how to phrase the headline than when to use the tool, but it still helps the agent understand its purpose.

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