create_document_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does this well. It describes the visual presentation ('Documents appear as carousel-style slideshows in the LinkedIn feed'), technical requirements ('Supported formats: PDF (recommended), PPTX, DOCX'), and constraints ('Maximum file size: 100MB'). It also mentions the return value format. The only gap is lack of information about rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements beyond the product enablement note.

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 well-structured and efficiently organized. It starts with the core purpose, then provides context about presentation and use cases, followed by requirements, technical specifications, parameter details, and return information. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the tool's purpose, visual behavior, use cases, prerequisites, technical constraints, detailed parameter semantics, and return value information. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return structure, allowing it to focus on other important contextual information.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter information. It explains each parameter's purpose, constraints, and options: text (max 3000 characters), document_path (accepts local paths or URLs), title (optional, defaults to filename), and visibility (PUBLIC or CONNECTIONS with default). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Create a LinkedIn post with a document') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_post, create_image_post, and create_video_post by specifying it's for document-based posts that appear as carousel-style slideshows. It explicitly mentions the resource (LinkedIn post) and the unique document functionality.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Great for sharing presentations, guides, reports, etc.') and mentions the prerequisite ('Requires "Share on LinkedIn" product enabled in your LinkedIn Developer app'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (like create_post for text-only posts or create_image_post for image posts).

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