LinkedIn Intelligence MCP Server

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 key behavioral traits: it's a destructive operation (implied by 'Delete'), requires specific API product access, has authorization constraints (only own comments), and indicates the return value ('Returns success status'). It doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions, but covers the essential safety and permission 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 statement, prerequisites, parameter explanations, return value, and authorization note. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information (what the tool does) is front-loaded. No wasted words or 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 destructive operation with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description provides excellent completeness. It covers purpose, prerequisites, parameter meanings, return indication, and authorization constraints. The output schema handles return value details, so the description doesn't need to explain return format.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It provides clear semantic explanations for both parameters: 'post_urn' is described as 'The URN of the post containing the comment' with format examples, and 'comment_id' as 'The ID or URN of the comment to delete'. 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 ('Delete a comment'), the target resource ('from a LinkedIn post'), and the method ('using the Official API'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'delete_post' and 'delete_reaction' by focusing specifically on comments, not posts or reactions.

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 explicit prerequisites ('Requires "Community Management API" product enabled') and authorization constraints ('You can only delete comments that you have authored'), which gives clear context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (like 'delete_post' for posts instead of comments).

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