prepare_linkedin_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides one valuable safety guarantee: the tool never publishes. However, it does not explain what 'prepare' actually does—whether it creates a draft, stores content, or simply returns a representation—so the behavior remains underspecified.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the most important behavioral fact ('This never publishes') is front-loaded in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 simple three-parameter tool, the description is nearly sufficient: the required text parameter is inferable, and the safety boundary is clear. Still, with no output schema and no parameter-level guidance, an agent does not know what the tool returns or what side effects, if any, 'prepare' has.

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 the description adds no meaning to text, altText, or imagePath beyond their names and schema constraints. The phrase 'for human review' hints that text is the reviewed content, but the description does not compensate for the absent parameter documentation.

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 names a specific verb ('prepare'), a resource ('LinkedIn post'), and a clear goal ('for human review'). The explicit statement 'This never publishes' separates it from the sibling publish_linkedin_post without any ambiguity.

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?

'For human review' gives clear context for when to use the tool, and 'This never publishes' rules out the main alternative action. It does not explicitly name publish_linkedin_post or spell out 'use this when you want a draft instead of publishing,' but the intended usage is strongly implied.

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