linkedin_profile_open_to_work

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Configura' implies a mutation, but the description says nothing about auth/session requirements, reversibility, what existing settings are affected, or what the 'save' flag does (preview vs persist) — a significant gap for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single, efficient sentence with the resource and its fields front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse given the tool's mutation semantics.

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, a nested object parameter, and an undocumented 'save' flag, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot confidently determine how the write persists or what the nested values must contain.

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 50%: the 'values' object has an example, but 'save' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does enumerate the field keys the 'values' object expects, adding some meaning beyond the schema example, but leaves the save/persist control entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb ('Configura') and resource ('Abierto a trabajar') and enumerates the configurable fields (cargos, ubicaciones, tipos de empleo, quién puede verlo). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like linkedin_profile_headline or linkedin_profile_about, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other profile-editing siblings, nor any stated prerequisites such as an active session or login. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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