Delete company post

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the operation is irreversible, that LinkedIn offers no trash/restore mechanism, and includes an implementation note about using page.evaluate to bypass Playwright actionability checks, referencing the root cause. This adds significant behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide. No contradiction exists.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by a critical warning and an implementation note. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content. The structure is clear and easy to scan.

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 complete schema (2 fully described parameters), an output schema, and strong annotations, the description adds complementary details: irreversibility, platform limitations, and a technical caveat about the click sequence. This covers the key behavioral aspects and is fully complete for a delete operation.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (post_urn and company_id) with 100% coverage, including a note that post_urn comes from company_list_posts. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Permanently delete a company post,' providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like company_edit_post or company_create_post by emphasizing the delete action and permanence. No ambiguity remains.

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 establishes a clear context: this tool is for permanently deleting a company post, with explicit irreversibility. It does not name alternative tools or provide exclusions, but the highly specific purpose makes the usage context obvious. A direct comparison to alternatives would be the only missing element.

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