linkedin_post_create

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 one meaningful trait: this is a write action gated behind an explicit confirm=true flag. It does not describe visibility defaults, permanence, rate limits, or what publishing returns. It also asserts confirm is mandatory while the schema's required list contains only "text", which is a latent inconsistency the caller must resolve.

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 with no filler, and the action is front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite. The brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it shades into under-specification rather than true economy.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain visibility behavior, image handling, and the confirmation contract. It covers only the action and the confirm gate, so an agent is left guessing about most of the call surface.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not: text, imagePath, and the visibility enum (anyone/connections) are never explained. Only confirm is addressed, leaving most of the parameter surface undocumented in both places.

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?

"Publica en el feed" states a specific verb (publish) and a specific resource/location (the LinkedIn feed), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not differentiate from siblings such as linkedin_post_comment or linkedin_post_react, which also act on feed content, so it stops short of a 5.

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 states a hard prerequisite ("Exige confirm=true"), which is a usage constraint the agent must satisfy before calling. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the adjacent post-interaction tools, so usage is only partially covered.

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