linkedin_create_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the media-type mutual exclusion, the upload-first prerequisite chain, and the non-obvious coercion that an empty commentary becomes a single space. What it does not disclose is the return value (post URN?), any permission/auth requirements for posting to an organization page, or error behavior on conflicting URNs.

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 followed by a scannable per-media bullet list; each bullet carries distinct routing information. The trailing 'Args:' block partially restates the bullets and the schema, adding some redundancy, but it is short and still load-bearing for the URN formats.

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 12-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers every media path, the required parameters, and cross-tool prerequisites. The remaining gap is the response contract and failure modes, which is modest given no output schema exists to defer to.

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 documents author_urn (with person vs organization URN form), commentary, visibility values, all media URNs, alt-text ordering, and article title/description. It leaves video_title and document_title unexplained, but those are self-evident given their sibling fields.

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 ('Create a LinkedIn post') and immediately enumerates the six supported post shapes, so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces versus siblings like linkedin_reshare_post or linkedin_create_poll. The per-media routing rules make it distinguishable from the upload tools it depends 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?

Explicitly states the mutual-exclusion rule ('pick ONE media type per call') and gives a when-to-use path per media type, including the required ordering with linkedin_upload_image, linkedin_upload_video, and linkedin_upload_document. It even notes which paths need no upload (article/link), which is exactly the kind of routing guidance most definitions omit.

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