update_headline

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 doesn't mention whether login is required, whether this opens a browser modal (implying visual/UI state changes), what side effects occur (e.g., navigation state changes, modal blocking), or whether the update persists immediately. The mention of a 'modal' hints at UI side effects but doesn't clarify them.

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 short sentence with minimal waste. However, it spends valuable word budget on the UI mechanism ('via the profile intro edit modal') rather than on more useful behavioral or usage information. It's concise but not optimally allocated.

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 mutating tool (updates a profile field) with no annotations and no output schema. Given its mutation profile, it should disclose prerequisites (login state, navigation state), success indicators, and side effects. The brief description is inadequate for a tool that alters user-visible profile data and likely involves browser navigation.

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?

With a single parameter (headline) at 0% schema coverage, the description doesn't mention the parameter at all. However, the parameter is self-evidently the headline text, and the presence of maxLength (220) in the schema provides the key constraint. The description adds almost nothing beyond what the schema and tool name already convey. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the single param is trivially inferable.

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 headline via the profile intro edit modal' uses a clear verb+resource ('Update...headline'), but the second clause ('via the profile intro edit modal') reveals a UI-automation implementation detail rather than a semantically meaningful distinction. It partially distinguishes from sibling update_about and get_my_profile, but the 'modal' phrasing muddles purpose with mechanism.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like update_about or get_my_profile. It implies it's for editing the headline field but offers no exclusions, prerequisites (e.g., must be logged in), or context about when a headline update is appropriate.

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