linkedin_save_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it excels: it states the tool mutates LinkedIn state, explains the preview/confirm two-step mechanism, describes the token's single-use, per-post, per-verb, two-minute expiry, and discloses that confirmation is read from a different surface (the saved list) rather than the button. It also explains the 'performed' result values and the risk of opposite actions on retry. This is exhaustive and transparent.

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 longer than typical, but it is well-structured and front-loaded: the opening sentence captures the core action and two-step nature. Subsequent paragraphs each add necessary detail (token lifecycle, confirmation source, retry warning) without redundancy. Every sentence serves a purpose; while verbose, it respects the complexity of the operation.

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?

Given the tool's state-changing complexity and two-step flow, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers the preview, confirmation, token expiry, result semantics, retry avoidance, and even a fallback suggestion ('look at your saved jobs instead'). An output schema exists, but the description still clarifies the meaning of 'performed' and the confirmation pathway, leaving no critical operational detail missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaningful context for confirm_token—its lifecycle, the preview/confirm pattern, and that an empty value means preview—which goes beyond the schema. For job_id, it mostly repeats the schema's description but confirms it as a numeric ID. The added semantic depth for confirm_token raises the score above the baseline of 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?

The description explicitly states the verb 'Bookmark' and the resource 'job posting on LinkedIn', and immediately distinguishes this tool from all read-only siblings by noting it is the only one that changes something on LinkedIn. It also implicitly contrasts with the sibling 'linkedin_unsave_job' by describing the save action. No ambiguity about what the 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?

The description gives a precise two-step procedure: call without confirm_token to preview, then call again with the token to save. It clearly states when to use the tool (when you want to save a job) and provides explicit warnings about token expiration, single-use, and when not to retry ('on "unknown" do not retry'). It also mentions the intended consequence of preventing unattended callers, further clarifying appropriate usage.

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