Prepare Personal LinkedIn Post

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

Annotations already signal idempotent/non-destructive behavior, but the description adds critical context: it never publishes, never acts as a company Page, and captures detailed post settings and local asset hashes. It still does not disclose what happens if no active composer exists or whether the composer state is modified, but the non-publishing guarantee is a strong, non-obvious behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three dense sentences front-load the core purpose and then efficiently enumerate supported content types, captured settings, and safety constraints. There is no filler, repetition of schema fields, or unnecessary explanation.

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 complex tool with a large nested schema, the description covers content modes, captured settings, and the non-publishing guarantee, which is good high-level orientation. It omits the explicit prepare→execute workflow, prerequisites for the 'active personal member composer,' and the role of context_id/request_id, so it is not fully complete for correct invocation despite the output schema existing.

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 only 11% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does summarize the content-mode alternatives and top-level options such as audience, group, comment control, brand partnership, collaborators, mentions, and schedule. It also adds the crucial hint that 'the content discriminator is mode, not kind.' However, it leaves context_id/request_id semantics, asset-ref derivation, and many nested constraints to the schema, so compensation is partial.

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 opens with 'Inspect the active personal member composer and prepare one immutable post,' which names a specific action, resource, and non-publishing scope. It also enumerates supported content types and explicitly contrasts with the sibling execute tool by noting it never publishes, making its 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 frames this as a preparation/inspection step and explicitly states it never publishes and never runs as a company Page, giving useful context for when to avoid it. It does not, however, explicitly name the paired posts.create.execute tool or spell out the exact sequence, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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