socials_linkedin_engage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'like' is a toggle, and warns to only use when the user explicitly wants these actions. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like repost being public or quote_repost creating a new visible post, which is important for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a compact action list and an important usage note. No filler or redundant content—every sentence serves a purpose.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core usage and action types well. However, it omits return/error semantics and the side effects of repost/quote_repost. Given the social context and potential public actions, more detail would be warranted for full completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the clarification that 'like' is a toggle, which is not in the schema, and references the post_id source. This is slight added value over the schema, but not substantial enough to raise beyond baseline.

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 tool's purpose: 'Engage with a LinkedIn post' with specific actions like, repost, and quote_repost. It distinguishes from siblings by being LinkedIn-specific and enumerating the exact engagement actions, making it easy to select over generic tools like socials_engage_post.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'Pass post_id from socials_get_feed' and 'IMPORTANT: Only use when the user explicitly wants these actions.' This sets a clear trigger and prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for replies), so it lacks a full when-not/alternatives list.

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