Publish or Schedule Prepared Personal LinkedIn Post

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

Adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: "Account-changing action," "exactly one immutable personal-post draft," and "An interrupted final action is never retried automatically." It also explains the verification process (hashes, preview, actor, expiry, options, idempotency key) and directly aligns with the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradiction.

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 four sentences, all dense with essential information. It front-loads the critical warning ("Account-changing action") and then efficiently covers approval, verification, and retry behavior 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?

For a high-risk execute tool, the description covers approval policy, verification steps, idempotency, and non-retry behavior. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. The only small gap is that the description does not explicitly instruct the user to first call the prepare tool, though the title's "Prepared" and sibling tool naming provide that context.

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% (only action_id and payload_hash have descriptions), so the description carries some weight. It mentions "preview, payload and asset hashes, actor, expiry, options, and global idempotency key," which gives high-level meaning to the parameters, but it does not provide per-parameter details or clarify the structure of approval_preview beyond what the schema already contains.

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?

Clearly states the action: "Publish or schedule exactly one immutable personal-post draft." The verb is specific, the resource is exactly defined as a prepared personal-post draft, and the description's account-changing warning distinguishes this from read-only tools.

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?

Provides explicit invocation conditions: "Invoke only when the MCP client's configured approval policy authorizes this exact execute tool." It also gives a strong default (interactive confirmation) and an exception (durable per-tool approval for unattended execution). It does not explicitly name the prepare alternative, but the title and schema parameter descriptions imply the prepare-then-execute flow.

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