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 this is an update operation but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens when optional parameters are omitted. The description lacks crucial behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 perfectly structured and economical. It starts with the core purpose, then provides a clean parameter breakdown with helpful annotations (like 'optional' and format requirements), and ends with the return value. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 that there's an output schema (though not shown here), the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the essential operation and parameters well. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention permission requirements or side effects 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 description provides clear semantic information about all four parameters beyond what the schema offers (which has 0% description coverage). It explains that 'job_id' identifies the scheduled post, 'content' is new content, 'scheduled_time' should be in ISO format, and 'visibility' controls post visibility. This significantly compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('a scheduled post'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar tools like 'update_draft' or 'edit_post' in the sibling list, which would require more specific context about what distinguishes scheduled posts from other content types.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit_post' or 'update_draft', nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints. While the required 'job_id' parameter is documented in the schema, the description doesn't explain how to obtain this ID or when this tool is appropriate.

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