linkedin_delete_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing. It does not disclose that the operation is destructive and irreversible, what permissions/ownership are required, or what happens on failure (e.g., post not found). 'Delete' implies mutation but no safety context is provided.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the Args block is pure boilerplate that repeats the schema without adding information. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than earned conciseness.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the definition is inadequate: no confirmation semantics, no error conditions, no ownership/permission prerequisites are described.

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% and there is one required parameter. The description only restates the parameter name ('post_urn: The post URN to delete'), adding essentially nothing about the expected URN format (e.g., 'urn:li:share:...') or where to obtain it.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Delete a post'), which is clear. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling linkedin_update_post, which could plausibly be confused with delete for an agent managing post lifecycle.

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 guidance on when to use delete versus update, nor any mention that deletion is typically irreversible or requires the post to belong to the authenticated user. The agent must infer all of this.

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