record_social_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important side-effect boundary 'This tool never posts,' which helps an agent understand it won't mutate external social platforms. However, it does not explain the write semantics, what happens with expected_revision mismatches, whether it creates or updates records, or what errors/return values to expect.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the critical non-posting boundary. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 the absence of annotations, lack of output schema, 11 parameters, and 4 required fields, the description is too thin. It provides a clear one-line purpose but does not cover the required concurrency-related field, return behavior, failure modes, or expected preconditions. An agent would have to guess at important invocation details.

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 compensate for the 11 parameters. It loosely covers 'url,' 'scheduled_at/status,' 'queued,' and 'blocker,' but it leaves required parameters like 'slug' and 'expected_revision' completely unexplained, and it also omits 'copy_path,' 'activity_id,' and 'published_at.' This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Record a LinkedIn or X outcome' and enumerates the kinds of outcomes (published URLs, schedules, queues, blockers). The explicit statement 'This tool never posts' clearly separates this from any publishing/post tool, including sibling record_publication.

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 gives clear positive context: use this to log a LinkedIn or X outcome. It also gives a when-not signal with 'This tool never posts,' implying it should not be used when the intent is to publish. It does not name explicit alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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