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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, closed-world write; the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations or schema: it applies only to posts published from now on, so existing content is unaffected. It doesn't mention the idempotency/retry semantics (left to the schema) or any permission prerequisites.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first defines the action and its options, the second front-loads the temporal scope constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, valid options, parameter sourcing, and temporal scope. Return value is not described, though the schema's idempotency note implies a result object; that is a minor gap.

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%, and the schema already explains author_type, workspace_id, organization_id, and idempotency_key. The description restates the author_type enum meanings and the provenance of organization_id, adding little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Sets who the workspace's LinkedIn posts go out as by default') and immediately enumerates the two valid configurations, distinguishing it from sibling listing tools like list_linkedin_authors.

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?

Clear context for when to call it (to set the default publishing identity per workspace) and it routes the agent to list_linkedin_authors to obtain the required organization_id. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or exclusion case, e.g. how this interacts with select_facebook_page or per-post author overrides.

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