update_linkedin_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'update' (mutation) but does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, if it is idempotent, authentication requirements (though likely needed), rate limits, or error handling. Significant behavioral gaps exist.

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 sentence with no waste, which is concise. However, it is borderline under-specified, as it omits key details that could be included without losing conciseness.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is very brief. It does not explain success indicators, error conditions, how to obtain positionId, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with this complexity, the description is incomplete.

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 100%: all 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without adding extra value.

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 'Update an existing position on your LinkedIn profile' clearly states the action (update), resource (position), and scope (existing). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like add_linkedin_position (create) and delete_linkedin_position (delete).

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 using this tool when you need to modify an existing position, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., obtaining positionId), and no context on when not to use it. The usage is inferred but not clearly directed.

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