register_published

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose the tool's behavior. It explains that it stores a snapshot and the post URN for tracking, but it does not mention side effects, such as whether it creates a record, whether auto_dm_enabled triggers a DM automation, or any permissions needed. For a write operation, this is insufficient.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and includes no redundant detail. It efficiently communicates the core purpose. It could benefit from a brief mention of other stored fields, but as is, it is appropriately concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how auto_dm_enabled behavior is handled, or the role of required cta_keyword. The description covers the registration concept but leaves critical usage context uncovered.

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?

With only 22% schema coverage, the description must explain the many undocumented parameters. It adds meaning for post_urn ('URN du post LinkedIn') and input_payload ('snapshot du LeadMagnetInput'), but leaves cta_keyword, archetype, post_text, visual_spec, resource_url, auto_dm_enabled, and resource_message unexplained. This is a significant gap for a 9-parameter tool.

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's action ('Enregistre' = registers) and resource ('lead magnet publié sur LinkedIn'), and explains the purpose (snapshot for engagement tracking). This distinguishes it from siblings like publish_lead_magnet and list_published. It could be more explicit about being an after-publishing step, but the 'publié' condition makes the intent clear.

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 implies this tool is for lead magnets that are already published on LinkedIn, which gives contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like publish_lead_magnet or update_post. The usage is only implied, not clearly framed with exclusions.

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