Publish Prepared LinkedIn Comment

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

The description discloses account-changing behavior beyond annotations, including 'immutable', 'exactly one', and the verification steps (preview, actor, target author, payload, local asset hash, expiry, idempotency). It also explains approval default vs. durable approval, providing actionable context not in the annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the critical 'Account-changing action' warning. Every sentence adds value—approval policy, verification, and immutability—without redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral safeguards and execution constraints. It could explicitly point to the matching prepare tool, but the schema and sibling context provide that linkage, so it remains complete enough.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It mentions verification of 'payload, local asset hash, expiry, and idempotency' which maps to payload_hash and idempotency_key, but it does not explain context_id, request_id, or approval_preview individually. Partial compensation at best.

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 and resource: 'Submit exactly one immutable personal-member top-level comment', which clearly states the tool's action and scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling prepare tool by emphasizing execution and verification.

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 provides a clear when-to-use condition: 'Invoke only when the MCP client's configured approval policy authorizes this exact execute tool.' It also implies a prepare-then-execute workflow with 'after the server verifies the preview...', though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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