linkedin_upload_banner

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnly=false), and the description adds critical behavioral details: the tool can replace an existing banner and enforces LinkedIn's image requirements. This goes beyond the structured metadata.

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?

A single sentence communicates the purpose and all constraints without waste. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, then provides needed file specifications.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the operation, input requirements, and expected behavior. It would be difficult to misuse this tool with the given information.

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 schema already describes filePath as 'Path to the banner image file.' The description adds valuable constraints on dimensions, formats, and file size, which the agent needs for input validation. This supplemental info enhances the schema's bare parameter description.

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 ('Upload or replace') and names the exact resource ('profile background banner'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like linkedin_upload_profile_photo. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly reference alternatives, the description clearly states the tool's scope for the profile background banner, making it obvious when to use it over sibling upload tools. No exclusion criteria are needed for such a targeted operation.

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