linkedin_update_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait — that the update is a partial update limited to commentary — but says nothing about permissions/auth requirements, error behavior, or reversibility for a mutation operation.

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-loads the core action, follows with the key constraint, then an Args block. Every sentence adds information; the only mild redundancy is restating 'commentary (text)' in the args.

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 2-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, its scope limitation, and both parameters with format hints. Missing permission and failure-mode detail, but otherwise adequate.

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. It documents both parameters and, notably, gives the accepted URN formats (urn:li:share / urn:li:ugcPost) for post_urn, which the schema does not, plus clarifies commentary is the 'new post text'.

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 ('Edit an existing post's commentary') and immediately bounds the scope by naming what cannot be changed (author, media, poll). This clearly separates it from siblings like linkedin_create_post and linkedin_delete_post without needing their schemas.

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 gives clear context for use: editing the text of an existing post. It also negates other edits ('author, media, and poll content cannot be changed'), but does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g. delete vs create) or state when this tool should not be invoked at all.

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