Export profile patch

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

With no annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: [risk: local-write], nothing sent to LinkedIn, never pushes. This is transparent about safety and scope, though it could mention file overwrite behavior.

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 extremely concise—three short sentences. It front-loads the risk warning and gets to the point without extraneous words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and constraints. It may be missing context about dependency on generate_update_plan, but the sibling list provides that implicitly.

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 has one parameter 'name' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what the parameter controls (e.g., file name, path), leaving the agent to infer from the default value 'profile-patch'.

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 clearly states the tool writes files to the local data directory, saving an update plan as Markdown+JSON. It distinguishes from siblings like generate_update_plan by emphasizing local export and no external push.

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 says to save the most recent update plan locally and never push anywhere, implying local-only usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus generate_update_plan or other alternatives.

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