linkedin_reshare_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. It discloses only that commentary is optional; it says nothing about the fact that a reshare creates a new feed item, whether it requires prior access to the source post, or the fact that visibility defaults to PUBLIC. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

One-line summary followed by a compact Args list; nothing is padded or redundant. The purpose statement is front-loaded ahead of the parameter details, making it 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?

With four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should cover the safety and visibility profile, yet the visibility default (PUBLIC) and the resulting publishing behavior are never stated. An agent could reshare publicly by accident. Coverage of URN formats is good but the tool's side effects remain underspecified.

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 three of four parameters — including a genuinely useful format hint for reshared_post_urn (urn:li:share:... or urn:li:ugcPost:...). However, the visibility parameter, which has an enum and defaults to PUBLIC, is never mentioned, leaving a behaviorally consequential parameter undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource: 'Reshare an existing post', which is distinct from siblings like linkedin_create_post (new post) and linkedin_update_post (edit existing). The optional-commentary clause clarifies the operation's shape without needing to open a sibling. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to reshare versus creating a new post or commenting, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many sibling tools (create_post, comment, update_post). Only the incidental 'optionally with your own commentary' hints at usage. Guidance is largely absent.

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