linkedin_publish_draft

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

The description discloses two useful behaviors: it attaches any media recorded with the draft, and it marks the draft as published on success. These add context beyond the annotations (which only state that the operation is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent). No contradiction with 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 two sentences, action-first, and entirely relevant. It states the primary action, a supporting detail about media, and the resulting state change without any redundant wording.

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 publish action with two parameters, the description covers the essential side effect (draft marked published) and media handling. It omits error cases or return values, but the lack of an output schema and the simple scope make this adequate without being excessively detailed.

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 input schema has 50% coverage: draftId is described, but visibility is an undocumented enum. The description does not explain the visibility parameter or its possible values, nor does it mention any defaults. It adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, leaving a gap.

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 tool publishes a previously saved local draft to LinkedIn, which is a specific action on a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like linkedin_save_draft and linkedin_delete_draft by focusing on the publish action.

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 'previously saved local draft' implies the intended use: after a draft has been saved with linkedin_save_draft. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like linkedin_create_post, but the draft-focused context provides clear guidance.

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