linkedin_withdraw_application

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable context beyond this: LinkedIn's conditional allowance and the acceptable 'not possible' outcome. This helps the agent reason about failures without contradicting annotations.

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 primary purpose, followed by one critical usage caveat. No redundant or tangential content.

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 with full schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, key behavioral constraints, and outcome expectations. Output schema absence is mitigated by the clear 'not possible' note.

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 detailed explanations for 'job' (URL/URN/ID formats) and 'confirm' (must be true, irreversible). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so it stays at the baseline 3.

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?

Clearly states the action: 'Withdraw a submitted job application.' The verb-resource pair is specific and the mention of LinkedIn's posting/window limitation differentiates it from the sibling tool linkedin_withdraw_invitation.

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?

Provides clear context on when withdrawal may be possible ('only for some postings and within a limited window') and sets expectation that a 'not possible' answer is normal. Does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient.

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