linkedin_create_article_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and use case; it does not mention side effects, required permissions, visibility defaults, or that the post will be publicly visible. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by relevant use cases. Every word earns its place; no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and use cases, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., visibility defaults, auto-generated hashtags are only in schema) and does not explain what happens after posting, making it adequate but not fully complete for a 6-parameter mutation tool.

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 100% since all 6 parameters have descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, such as reinforcing that articleUrl is the link to share, but it does not introduce new parameter context that the schema already provides.

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 action ('Create') and resource (LinkedIn post with article/link), and differentiates from siblings like linkedin_create_image_post by specifying article sharing. It even provides concrete use cases (blog posts, news articles), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('Great for sharing blog posts, news articles, or any web content'), which implies its appropriate use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or call out alternatives like linkedin_create_post for text-only posts, preventing a 5.

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