linkedin_delete_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states the operation is 'Irreversible,' which is the single most important behavioral trait for a destructive tool, and it scopes the action to the user's own posts. It does not mention error conditions, permissions, or side effects, but the critical permanence warning is present.

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 sentences with zero filler: the verb and resource are front-loaded, the identification method is stated, and the irreversibility warning is appended. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential ground: what is deleted, whose post, how to identify it, and that it cannot be undone. The only gaps are the return value on success and failure cases, which are minor for a tool this simple.

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% — the schema already documents post_urn with a concrete example format (urn:li:share:7123456789). The description's 'by URN' merely reinforces what the schema states and adds no new semantic meaning. The baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') with a precise resource ('one of your own posts') and the identification method ('by URN'). The 'your own' scope clearly differentiates it from any broader deletion capability and from siblings like linkedin_create_post, linkedin_get_me, and the generic linkedin_call. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage context is implied: the agent should use this when a user wants to remove one of their own posts. The 'your own' constraint provides a mild exclusion, but the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus linkedin_create_post or linkedin_call. Guidance is adequate but inferred rather than stated.

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