Create a LinkedIn post

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

Annotations already mark destructive=true, but the description adds substantial context: the two-step preview/publish mechanism, daily posts cap, visibility default, media refusal with invalid_input, 1300-character collapse warning, and dry-run behavior. This goes well beyond what annotations provide and contains no contradictions.

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?

While long, every sentence adds operational value: purpose first, then invocation pattern, then limitations and edge cases. There is no filler or redundant phrasing; the structure logically leads the agent through what to expect.

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?

Covers the preview response fields, error handling for media, warning threshold, and dry-run behavior. The only notable gap is that it doesn't describe what the final publish call returns (e.g., post ID or confirmation response), which would be useful since there is no output schema. Still, this is minor relative to the volume of useful context.

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 has zero descriptions, so the description carries the full burden. It explains text (content), confirm (publish gate), mediaUrl (accepted but unsupported, refused on confirm), visibility (default 'public', meaning of 'connections'), and previewToken (returned from preview). All parameters are meaningfully clarified.

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 and resource: 'Publishes a text post to the signed-in member’s LinkedIn feed.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like send_message or scrape_profile and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It explains the two-step invocation pattern (preview without confirm, publish with confirm) and the media limitation as a clear 'not supported' case with manual workaround. It doesn't explicitly mention sibling alternatives, but the usage context and when-to-publish guidance are strong.

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