create_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. The description clearly implies a mutating action ('Create...post'), which is evident. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral specifics like whether a linkedin_login is required first, rate limits, whether the post is immediately public, or failure/response behavior. The dry_run parameter (in schema) signals a safe preview path but isn't surfaced in the description.

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?

A single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource. Slightly terse given the tool's core role, but structurally appropriate.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and only the dry_run safety valve documented. For a writing/mutation tool in a large sibling set (39 tools), the description should clarify prerequisites like login state, mention that this actually publishes to a real feed, and address the destructive nature. The description is too sparse for the tool's role and complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50% (text parameter has no description but dry_run does). The description itself adds no meaning beyond the schema for either parameter. The dry_run parameter is well-documented in the schema. Baseline 3 applies since schema does partial heavy lifting, but the description contributes nothing beyond restating the resource type.

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?

Clear verb+resource+scope: 'Create a LinkedIn text post on your feed.' It identifies the platform (LinkedIn), the resource (text post), and the destination (your feed). It distinguishes from like_post, comment_on_post, and repost siblings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other content-creation actions beyond its concise phrasing.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like repost or comment_on_post. The dry_run parameter hints at a preview workflow but the description provides no context for when posting is appropriate, prerequisites (e.g., must be logged in), or alternatives. This is a gap given the many sibling tools.

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