linkedin_create_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the OAuth scope requirement (w_member_social) and the required signed-in state, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about irreversibility of the write, whether the post can be edited/deleted afterward, rate limits, or what a successful call yields (no output schema exists to cover this).

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, the action front-loaded and the prerequisite second. No redundant restatement of the tool name or schema constraints.

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 2-parameter publish tool this covers the essentials: what it does and what authorization it needs. It is incomplete for a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, since it never clarifies the write's reversibility or the result of a successful call.

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 description coverage is 100%: both 'commentary' (3000 char limit) and 'visibility' (enum with default PUBLIC) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Publish a text post') plus the acting identity ('as the signed-in member'). This cleanly separates it from the auth-lifecycle siblings (login, status, logout, profile), none of which publish content.

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?

Provides the operative prerequisite: the account must be signed in and must have the Share on LinkedIn product (w_member_social). That implicitly routes an unauthenticated agent to linkedin_login, but no exclusion or alternative is stated explicitly, which is the only gap for a tool with no true sibling alternative.

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