create_video_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing important behavioral traits: the requirement for specific product enablement, video processing time ('may take a few minutes'), and the return format ('post details including post URN and video URN'). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication details, but covers most critical operational aspects.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose, prerequisites, technical specifications, parameters, and returns. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The bullet-point formatting for video specs and parameter explanations enhances readability without wasting space.

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 (video upload with specific requirements), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides comprehensive context. It covers prerequisites, technical constraints, parameter semantics, return values, and processing behavior, making it complete enough for effective use despite the structured data gaps.

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 compensates fully by explaining all 4 parameters: text (max 3000 characters), video_path (local file or URL options with format details), title (optional), and visibility (PUBLIC or CONNECTIONS with default). It provides meaningful context beyond basic schema types, including constraints and options.

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 video') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_image_post, create_document_post, and create_post by specifying it's for video content. It uses precise language that identifies both the verb and resource.

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 by specifying it requires the 'Share on LinkedIn' product enabled and listing technical requirements (video duration, formats, size). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for non-video posts.

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