linkedin_upload_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses the return value (a urn:li:document URN) and the downstream consumption path. It says nothing about permissions/auth needed for the author URN, file size or type limits, idempotency, or failure modes of the upload, which are material for a network-bound mutation.

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?

The purpose and workflow value are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with parameters listed afterward in a compact Args block. Reasonably tight, though the Args block slightly restates the schema's property names.

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 two-parameter upload with no output schema, the description covers the essential loop: what to pass, what comes back, and where the result is used next. It omits file constraints and auth requirements, which is the main remaining gap.

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 only partially does: file_path is enriched with 'absolute path' and 'PDF', but author_urn is described tautologically as 'The owner URN' without stating the expected URN form (person vs. organization).

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 and resource ('Upload a local document (e.g. PDF)') plus the output ('return its document URN'), which cleanly separates it from linkedin_upload_video and linkedin_upload_image. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear context: the returned URN is referenced via document_urn on linkedin_create_post to publish a document/carousel post, so the agent knows this is a preparatory step in a specific workflow. However, it names no exclusions or alternate paths (e.g. what to do for images/videos), so it falls short of explicit when-not guidance.

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