linkedin_comment_on_post

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the description discloses that the comment is public and attributed to the signed-in user, and advises confirming wording. This adds meaningful behavioral context that annotations do not capture. It does not mention rate limits or error conditions, but covers the important social/side-effect aspects.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by key constraints. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 write operation, the description is largely complete: it states the action, maximum length, public visibility, attribution, and a user-confirmation requirement. It lacks return-value or error details, but no output schema exists and the tool is simple enough that these are not critical; still, a small gap remains regarding what happens after posting.

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 100%, with the schema already describing both 'post' and 'text' including accepted formats and max length. The description only restates the max character limit, adding no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Add a comment to a post.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like linkedin_reply_to_comment (which targets comments) and linkedin_create_post (which creates posts). The action is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context about the action being public and attributed to the user, and advises confirming wording. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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