delete_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 correctly identifies this as a destructive operation ('Delete'), mentions an API requirement, and states the return value ('Returns success status'), but doesn't specify permissions needed, rate limits, or what 'success status' entails. It adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose, prerequisite, and parameter/return details. It's front-loaded with the core action and uses clear formatting for the Args section. One minor improvement could be integrating the prerequisite more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 1 parameter (0% schema coverage), and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns success status'), the description does well: it explains the action, prerequisite, parameter, and return. However, for a destructive operation, it could better address safety considerations or error cases to be fully 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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides the parameter name ('post_urn'), explains its purpose ('The URN of the post to delete'), and gives an example format ('e.g., "urn:li:share:123456"'), adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain where to find this URN or validation rules.

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 LinkedIn post') and resource ('using the Official API'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_comment, delete_draft, and delete_reaction which target different resources. It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Delete a LinkedIn post') and includes a prerequisite ('Requires "Share on LinkedIn" product enabled in your LinkedIn Developer app'), providing clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings like delete_comment or delete_draft.

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