linkedin_unsave_job

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is exceptionally transparent: it confesses 'THIS TOOL CANNOT PERFORM ANYTHING TODAY,' explains the technical reason (unknown accessible name), details the preview failure condition, and states it will refuse rather than guess. This level of honest disclosure is exemplary.

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 a multi-paragraph essay covering the tool's broken state, future fix, and preview behavior. While informative, it is verbose and could be condensed into a few sentences. An MCP description should be concise; this one isn't.

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 has an output schema and no annotations, the description must convey behavioral context. It thoroughly covers why the tool refuses, how preview behaves, and the condition for it to work, leaving no ambiguity about what will happen when called. It is complete for an agent to handle correctly.

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% – both parameters (job_id and confirm_token) are fully described in the input schema, including the preview vs. token behavior. The description adds no additional parameter-level information, which is acceptable given the schema already covers semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Remove one job posting from your saved list,' which is a clear verb+resource statement. It implicitly differentiates from linkedin_save_job by being the inverse operation, though it doesn't explicitly compare with siblings. The core purpose is unambiguous despite the lengthy caveats about the tool being non-functional.

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 implies usage when a user wants to unsave a job and explicitly states the tool cannot currently perform the action and will refuse until a label is measured. It also mentions the preview limitation based on having a saved job. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the refusal condition is clear.

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