update_about

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description clearly signals this is a write/mutation operation ('Update'), which is evident from the verb. However, it doesn't disclose whether a login is required first, whether changes are immediately visible, or whether there are validation rules beyond the schema's maxLength constraint. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, some additional context would help.

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, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, and there is no extraneous content. This is appropriately concise for a tool with a single unambiguous parameter.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, so the bar for completeness is lower. The description adequately covers purpose and what to provide, but for a write operation with no annotations, it would benefit from noting the login prerequisite (given the sibling linkedin_login exists) and possibly the max character limit implications. There are no gaps that would cause an agent to misuse the tool, but some operational context (e.g., needing to be authenticated) is absent.

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 for the schema. While the description itself doesn't explicitly document the 'about' parameter, the single-parameter schema with a maxLength of 2600 is self-explanatory, and the description clearly indicates what content goes into that field (the About/summary text). The description adds meaning by situating the parameter in context, even though it doesn't explicitly enumerate parameter details.

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 your LinkedIn About / summary section' uses a specific verb (update) with a specific resource (LinkedIn About/summary section), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling update_headline tool. It's not a tautology and clearly identifies what it does, though it could be slightly more explicit about the fact that this is the profile's bio/summary text.

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 usage context (updating the About section of a LinkedIn profile) and the sibling update_headline provides an implicit contrast for when to use which tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, mention any prerequisites like being logged in, or note that updating About differs from updating headline.

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