publish_linkedin_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the human-approval gate and the reviewed-status precondition, which are important behavioral traits. However, it does not mention that publishing is a public, likely irreversible action, nor any authentication or connection requirements.

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 description is a single efficient sentence with no filler. The key action and the critical safety condition are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to grasp the tool's purpose quickly.

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 publishing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits parameter details, return behavior, error conditions, and workflow integration with prepare_linkedin_post, leaving an agent with only partial guidance for correct invocation.

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 does not explain any parameter beyond implying that approval is required. Parameter names like text, altText, imagePath, and approved are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic detail to compensate for the absence of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Publish'), a clear resource ('already-reviewed LinkedIn post'), and a defining condition ('only after explicit human approval'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like prepare_linkedin_post, which would handle drafting/review rather than final publication.

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 conveys the key usage condition: this tool should only be used after a post has been reviewed and explicitly approved by a human. It does not explicitly name prepare_linkedin_post as the prerequisite alternative, but 'already-reviewed' strongly implies the correct workflow position.

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