Upload document (LinkedIn)

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and potential unknown side effects (openWorldHint=true), but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It does not disclose key traits like async upload being the default, queuing behavior, scheduling capabilities, or visibility options. The description fails to inform the agent about important side effects beyond the fact it publishes a document.

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 concise at two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. However, it is too minimal to be genuinely helpful; adding a few more key details (e.g., about scheduling or async behavior) would improve usability without sacrificing conciseness.

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 (11 parameters, output schema present, many sibling tools), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, common parameter combinations, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow. The description is complete only for the most basic case.

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 36% schema description coverage, many parameters lack explanations in the schema. The description adds no value beyond stating that 'title' is required, which is already in the schema. Parameters like documentPathOrUrl, user, and asyncUpload are left unexplained, so the description does not help the agent understand their purpose or format.

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 'Publish' and the resource 'document' with explicit file types (PDF, PPT, PPTX, DOC, DOCX). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_text, upload_video, and upload_photos, which handle other media types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like upload_text or upload_video. It only mentions file types and that title is required, but does not explain typical use cases, prerequisites, or context for choosing this tool over others.

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