linkedin_endorse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose one substantive behavioral fact: the operation requires confirm=true. This matters because the schema's required list omits confirm, so the description reveals a de facto mandatory gate for a write action on someone else's profile. It still says nothing about permissions, whether endorsement is reversible, or rate limits.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the hard requirement immediately after. No filler, though it is arguably too terse to be fully useful.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is thin: an agent cannot infer the expected form of target or how to obtain valid skill strings. Only the confirm gate is covered.

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 0% for 3 parameters. The description clarifies confirm (effectively required, contradicting the schema's required list) but leaves target (format? URL, vanity name, URN?) and skills (which skill names are valid, where they come from) completely unspecified, so it compensates for only one of three gaps.

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?

"Valida aptitudes en el perfil de otra persona" gives a verb (valida) and a resource (aptitudes/perfil ajeno), and the scoping to another person's profile is useful. However, "validar" is a loose synonym for endorsing given the tool name linkedin_endorse, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like linkedin_profile_read or linkedin_profile_sections that also touch profiles.

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 only guidance is "Exige confirm=true," which is a precondition rather than when-to-use direction. There is no mention of when to endorse versus messaging, following, or reading a profile, and no exclusions.

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