linkedin_create_text_post

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

Annotations already signal that this is a mutating, non-read-only operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds the useful distinction between publishing and drafting, and specifies that only text content is supported. It does not disclose additional behaviors such as the post becoming publicly visible, permission requirements, or irreversible external effects.

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?

A single 14-word sentence carries the core purpose, action, resource type, and author scope without any filler. The most decision-relevant information is 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?

For a 6-parameter write operation with no output schema, one sentence is insufficient. The description omits any mention of the response/return value, auth prerequisites, the meaning of the visibility and lifecycle defaults, and when to use this tool versus the auth and retrieval siblings. An agent would need schema and external reasoning to invoke it confidently.

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 coverage is only 50%, so the description needed to compensate. It does clarify that author_urn can be a person or organization and that the content body is text-only, which addresses commentary's undocumented schema entry. However, it does not elaborate on visibility, lifecycle_state, reshare_parent_urn, or access_token beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a specific verb pair, 'Publish or draft', names the exact resource ('text-only LinkedIn post'), and scopes it to 'member or organization author URN'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like linkedin_get_post and linkedin_find_posts_by_author, which are retrieval operations.

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 phrase 'Publish or draft' implies that the tool is for creating posts rather than fetching them, so usage is inferable from context. However, there is no explicit guidance about prerequisites such as OAuth, when to prefer DRAFT vs PUBLISHED, or when not to use this tool compared with the auth/profile sibling tools.

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