linkedin_add_patent

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

With no annotations and a one-sentence description, there is no disclosure of behavioral traits such as whether it updates existing patents, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The agent is left uninformed about important aspects.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded. It effectively states the tool's purpose in minimal words, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks context on return values, expected behavior on success/failure, and how the patent is linked to the profile. For a creation tool, more completeness is needed.

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 83% (5 out of 6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers most parameters.

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 'Add a patent to the LinkedIn profile' clearly states the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from numerous sibling 'add_*' tools, which all share the same pattern. A score of 4 reflects clear purpose but lack of sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like linkedin_add_experience or linkedin_add_publication. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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