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 for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether partial updates are allowed, what happens to unchanged fields, or error conditions. The return statement is minimal and doesn't describe the format or what 'updated draft' means.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by a well-organized parameter section. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the 'Returns' statement could be slightly more informative given there's no output schema description provided in context.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the basics but has significant gaps. It documents parameters well but lacks behavioral context about permissions, partial updates, error handling, and the return format. The existence of an output schema (per context signals) means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but other behavioral aspects are underspecified.

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 well by explaining all 4 parameters in the Args section. It identifies draft_id as required and the others as optional, and provides meaningful context about what each parameter represents (e.g., 'New content', 'New title', 'New comma-separated tags').

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 ('Update') and resource ('a content draft'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'edit_post' or 'update_scheduled_post', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit_post' or 'update_scheduled_post'. It mentions optional parameters but doesn't explain when they should be used or what happens if none are provided beyond the required draft_id.

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