Generate manual update plan

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

The description discloses the tool is local and draft-only, indicating no data is sent and no changes are applied. This provides good transparency for a non-destructive tool, though it does not elaborate on rate limits or auth needs.

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 with two sentences that front-load the risk and local nature. Every word adds value.

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 no output schema, the description explains the plan format (field, edit URL, old text, new text, rationale). It covers the main input parameter and output behavior, though it could briefly mention the return format explicitly.

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 input schema has one parameter 'changes' with a description for the 'field' property. The description adds context about the output plan containing 'edit URL' and 'old text', but does not significantly enhance understanding of the input structure beyond what the schema provides.

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 generates a manual editing plan locally without sending data to LinkedIn. It distinguishes from siblings like rewrite_* or create_linkedin_post by emphasizing the manual, draft-only nature.

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 the tool is for drafting manual plans, with phrases like 'You apply changes by hand' and 'Nothing is sent to LinkedIn.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus automated alternatives.

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