linkedin_publish_post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate them. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the post must be approved, the author URN must be account-bound, idempotency_key provides stable business-action identity, and effect is verified by Spring. It does not elaborate on the public/permanent nature of a published post, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a clean, labeled Args block. Every parameter receives a dedicated line with no filler, and the format is easy for an agent to scan.

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 10-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the approval workflow, idempotency, author binding, and connector route context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the requiredness mismatch with the schema and the lack of guidance on how to obtain author_urn or approval_ref leave minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of documenting all 10 parameters, and it does list each one with a terse semantic label. However, author_urn and text are marked 'required' in the description while the input schema declares zero required properties and all parameters nullable, creating a mismatch that could mislead an agent; the one-line labels are useful but some terms like project_ref and connector_account_ref remain jargon-heavy.

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-resource pair, 'Publish one approved post,' and adds precise scope: the LinkedIn member or organization author bound to the authenticated project connector route. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling publishing tools like facebook_publish_post and instagram_publish_post by name and domain.

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 description conveys clear usage context: this is for publishing an already-approved LinkedIn post under a specific bound author, and approval_ref is used when resuming a write. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it misses the top bar for explicit exclusion guidance, but the intended scenario is well implied.

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