Prepare LinkedIn Comment

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: it never submits, the comment is immutable, and only one exact visible post is inspected. It also constrains attachments (local hash-locked photo, exact visible GIF), which is highly informative. Annotation sets cover read-only/idempotent/destructive hints, and this description adds the crucial 'never submits' distinction.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the core action, the second lists supported features and the decisive 'never submits.' Every sentence is meaningful and there is no 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?

The description covers core capabilities, preconditions, and the non-submission behavior, making it sufficient for the tool's complexity. With an output schema present and annotations available, the lack of detail on context_id/request_id semantics is a minor gap but does not undermine overall completeness.

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?

With no schema-level descriptions for main properties, the description compensates by mapping supported content types to the parameters: text, links, emoji, mentions, photo, or GIF. It also implies the post_ref requirement via 'exact visible post.' However, it does not explain the required context_id and request_id fields, which remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 clearly states the tool prepares an immutable top-level personal-member comment, with explicit enumeration of supported content types. The phrase 'This tool never submits' distinguishes it from the execute sibling and makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly indicates when to use it (prepare a comment) and when not to use it ('never submits'), but it does not explicitly name the alternative execute tool. The tool name and sibling list imply the correct counterpart, so guidance is clear though not fully explicit about alternatives.

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