createSharePostShare on LinkedIn, create a share post - Create a new share post on LinkedIn using text, URLs, and images
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| createSharePostBody | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, potentially destructive operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond content types, and does not disclose side effects like publishing publicly or required permissions. With annotations present, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral detail.
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 and moderately concise. It does repeat 'Share on LinkedIn' and 'Create a new share post on LinkedIn', creating slight redundancy, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded.
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's complexity (nested objects, no output schema, low param coverage), the description is insufficient. It does not mention required fields, enum values, or the workflow for using specificContent, making it incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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% per context signals, and the description only vaguely references 'text, URLs, and images' without explaining the structured parameters (author, visibility, lifecycleState, specificContent). The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'a new share post on LinkedIn', with additional detail about content types (text, URLs, images). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getSharePosts and getPersonProfile, which are read-only.
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 makes it evident that the tool is for creating share posts, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, falling short of the 'explicit when/when-not' standard.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: creating posts, retrieving profiles, and retrieving posts. There is no overlap, making selection unambiguous for agents.
All tool names use a consistent camelCase verb_noun pattern (create, get). The naming is predictable and follows a clear convention throughout.
With 3 tools, the server is minimal but each tool serves a distinct purpose and fits the apparent scope. It is at the lower end of the typical range but not unreasonably thin.
The server covers create and read for posts but lacks update or delete operations. Profile coverage only includes fetching, not searching or updating, leaving notable lifecycle gaps.