create_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal the main side effect (publishing to the feed) and the author restriction, which is useful. But it does not mention authentication requirements, visibility, rate limits, or reversibility, leaving some important behavior unstated.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a tight Args block. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no filler or repetition of the input schema.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential operation, the required text, and the optional media path and allowed types. It could add an explicit login prerequisite, but the sibling set already includes auth tools and the operation itself is straightforward.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must define the parameters, and it does so clearly. text is described as the post content, and media_path is optional with explicit allowed file types (.png, .jpg, .pdf). This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Publish'), a resource ('post to your LinkedIn feed'), and a key constraint ('authored exclusively by your profile'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like create_poll and comment_on_post without needing their schemas.

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 intended context is clearly implied: this tool creates a feed post with optional media. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or exclusions, such as using create_poll for polls or comment_on_post for comments. An agent must infer when this tool is the right choice relative to siblings.

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