LinkedIn Intelligence MCP Server

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 states the action is a deletion but doesn't clarify if it's reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting scheduled posts), or details error conditions. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by a brief parameter explanation and return note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 tool with no annotations, the description is minimal but covers the basic action and parameter. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but it lacks critical behavioral context (e.g., irreversibility, permissions), making it only partially complete.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'draft_id' by specifying it's the 'ID of the draft to delete', which clarifies its role beyond the schema's type definition. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates well, though it doesn't explain ID format or sourcing.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a content draft'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_post' or 'delete_comment', which have similar deletion semantics but target different resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing draft), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'delete_post' or 'cancel_scheduled_post', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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