linkedin_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully names the required OAuth scope ('w_member_social'), but says nothing about the fact that this creates publicly visible content, whether duplicate comments are allowed, rate limits, or failure behavior for an invalid URN.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then scope, then a clean arg list. Slightly redundant that the args list restates parameter names already in the schema, but every line is short and earns its place for an undocumented schema.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the auth scope and all parameters, which is the essential core. It stops short of return value, error semantics, and visibility consequences, so an agent knows how to call it but not fully what to expect.

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, and it does: all four parameters are explained with meaning ('Who is commenting', 'The post URN being commented on', 'The comment body', 'If replying to a comment'). It even gives a format exemplar (`urn:li:person:...`), though it omits that parent_comment_urn defaults to null.

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+resource pair ('Comment on a post') and adds a second distinct mode ('reply to a comment'), which an agent can immediately distinguish from siblings like linkedin_create_post or linkedin_reshare_post. The scope line and arg list reinforce exactly what the tool operates on.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative (e.g. when to comment vs reshare vs post). The only routing hint is the conditional phrase 'If replying to a comment' for parent_comment_urn, which is parameter-level, not tool-selection-level.

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