edit_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: it requires specific LinkedIn Developer app configuration, uses LinkedIn's PARTIAL_UPDATE method (which updates only specified fields), and has a constraint that at least one of 'text' or 'image_path' must be provided. It also mentions the 3000-character limit for text. However, it doesn't cover rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the product enablement, or error handling.

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 and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then lists prerequisites, parameters with clear formatting, return information, and important notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and information is front-loaded with the main purpose stated first.

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 (mutation operation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description does an excellent job covering most essential aspects. It explains the purpose, parameters, constraints, and method used. However, it could benefit from mentioning authentication requirements beyond product enablement and potential side effects. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, which helps completeness.

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 fully compensates by providing detailed parameter information. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'post_urn' identifies the post to edit, 'text' is new content with character limit, 'image_path' replaces existing media, and 'alt_text' is for the new image. It also clarifies that 'text' and 'image_path' are optional but at least one must be provided, and 'post_urn' is required.

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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Edit/update') and resource ('an existing LinkedIn post'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_post' (for new posts) and 'update_draft' (for drafts). It explicitly mentions using the Official API, which adds specificity.

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 for when to use this tool: for editing existing LinkedIn posts. It mentions the prerequisite 'Share on LinkedIn' product must be enabled. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'update_draft' for drafts vs. 'edit_post' for published posts).

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