linkedin_post_react

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only that confirm=true is mandatory. It says nothing about the fact that reactions are public and visible to the post author, whether they can be undone, or the session/auth requirements implied by the many login/session siblings.

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 the core action stated first and the confirm requirement second; no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity trades away information rather than compacting it.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An agent needs to know the postUrl format, the reaction default, and the public/irreversible nature of publishing a reaction, none of which is present.

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%, so the description must explain the three parameters. It clarifies that confirm must be true but says nothing about the required postUrl format or which reaction value applies by default versus the enumerated options (like, celebrate, support, etc.), leaving two of three 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 ('Reacciona a una publicación'), so the agent immediately knows this adds a reaction to a post. It is distinguishable in substance from siblings like linkedin_post_comment or linkedin_posts_read, but the description never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts itself with them, so differentiation is left to the agent.

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 only usage instruction is 'Exige confirm=true', a prerequisite rather than guidance about when to choose this tool. There is no mention of when to react versus comment, create, or follow, nor any condition or exclusion to route the agent correctly.

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