linkedin_update_setting

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it warns of 'real privacy consequences' from mis-clicks and notes LinkedIn's UI instability. This gives the agent an important risk perspective.

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 resource, no fluff. Every clause adds value: the safe settings are enumerated, and the manual-only boundary is clear.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, scope, and risk. It lacks a note about return value, but that's not essential here given the output schema is absent and the action is straightforward updates.

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% and already documents allowed values for both settings. The description adds minimal meaning by explaining 'how you appear when viewing others' for profile-viewing-mode, but doesn't elaborate on value semantics. Meets baseline for high schema 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 'Change' and identifies the exact settings ('profile-viewing-mode' and 'open-to-work-visibility'), with a brief explanation of each. This clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like linkedin_get_settings.

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?

It explicitly states these are 'one of the few settings that can be automated safely' and that everything else 'must be changed manually,' providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't name specific alternate tools, but the exclusion of other settings is strong and actionable.

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