auth_set_access_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the token is set as active, but does not mention whether this overwrites an existing token, persists across sessions, affects auth lifecycle, or what capability hints actually do.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the primary action, though the vague 'capability hints' tail could be structured more clearly.

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 six parameters, zero annotations, and the existence of numerous auth-related sibling tools, this description is not complete enough. It does not explain the auth flow context, the meaning of capability hints, or which parameters are relevant for typical usage.

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%, so the description must compensate. It identifies access_token and vaguely references 'capability hints', but does not explain the six parameters such as source, expires_at, member_urn, scopes_csv, or role_hints_csv, nor how they relate to each other.

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 clear verb (Set) and resource (active LinkedIn access token), and also mentions optional capability hints. It is distinguishable from siblings like auth_start/auth_refresh, but the 'capability hints' phrase is vague and could overlap with auth_set_role_hints.

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 such as auth_start, auth_refresh, auth_status, or auth_set_role_hints. The context of manual token injection versus the OAuth flow is entirely absent.

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