Edit or delete a LinkedIn post

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior, but the description adds critical specifics: delete is immediate and public, edit only affects text, and a visual change requires a new post. It also implies confirmation requirements. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, though it could elaborate on reversal or side effects for completeness.

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 efficient, with each sentence carrying essential information. It front-loads the core purpose and then packs constraints and usage nuances into a compact, structured text. No fluff or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, constraints, and confirmation. It could mention error handling or side effects, but the key operational details (immediate deletion, copy-only edits) are present. The userId/Page context is implied by 'personal profile or company Page.'

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 coverage is 75% (action lacks a description), but the description compensates by explaining the postUrn requirement (full urn from publishing) and the semantics of action values. It adds context that the schema does not fully provide, such as the text being the only editable copy and confirm being mandatory for delete.

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 (edit or delete), the resource (a published LinkedIn post), and the scope (personal profile or company Page). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_x_post or edit_x_post by specifying LinkedIn and the specific actions.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus not: edit only changes copy, if a visual change is needed it says 'a new visual means a NEW post — tell the user instead of promising a swap.' It also specifies that delete is immediate and public and requires confirm:true, giving clear conditions for use.

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