create_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. It adds useful context about API methods (Official vs. unofficial), TOS compliance, and required product enablement ('Share on LinkedIn'), which goes beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., public visibility implications), error conditions, or rate limits.

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 with clear sections (overview, args, returns) and front-loaded key information. Every sentence adds value, though the API method details could be slightly condensed. No wasted words, but not perfectly minimal.

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 tool's complexity (API integration, visibility settings), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return values, and API context. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements or error handling, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains both parameters: 'text' (post content with 3000-character max) and 'visibility' (PUBLIC or CONNECTIONS with default). This adds crucial semantic meaning not present in the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints beyond character limits.

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 new LinkedIn post') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_image_post, create_video_post, and create_draft by specifying it's for creating a standard text post. It also mentions the resource (LinkedIn) and method (Official API or unofficial API).

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 (for creating LinkedIn posts) and mentions the recommended API method (Official LinkedIn API with w_member_social scope). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., create_image_post for image-based posts).

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