linkedin_upload_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: processing is asynchronous and a post may not go live immediately. It omits auth/permission requirements, file size or duration limits, and any rate-limit or overwrite behavior, so the disclosure is partial.

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 action and return value, followed by a useful async caveat and a clean Args block. No wasted sentences, though the Args section largely restates short schema titles.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description helpfully names the returned URN and the async behavior, but it leaves auth requirements and success/failure conditions unstated. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 adds format detail ('absolute path to a local video (MP4)') for file_path, but author_urn is explained only as 'The owner URN', which is barely more than the schema. It adds meaning for one parameter and not the other.

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 ('Upload a local video file') plus the return artifact ('video URN'), which is enough for an agent to pick it over unrelated siblings. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from linkedin_upload_image or linkedin_upload_document beyond the word 'video'.

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?

Usage is only implied: the async note suggests uploading here before referencing the video in a post, but the description never names a when-to-use condition or an alternative tool. An agent must infer the pipeline from sibling names.

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