linkedin_post_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only adds the confirm=true gate. It does not disclose that this is a public, non-reversible write action, nor auth/permission needs, rate limits, or failure modes.

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 very short sentences, with the action stated first and the safety constraint second. Zero wasted words and well front-loaded.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks the when-to-use context and the semantics of the required text/postUrl parameters.

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 0% and neither text nor postUrl meaning is explained. The description only clarifies that confirm must be true (schema lists it as optional), which is useful but leaves two required parameters undocumented.

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 (comment on a post), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings such as linkedin_post_react, linkedin_post_create, and linkedin_posts_read. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from those siblings in the text itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like linkedin_post_react or linkedin_message, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the bare confirm requirement. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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