Delete a LinkedIn post

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds value by stating the operation is irreversible and explicitly instructs confirming with the user first—a practical behavioral safeguard not encoded in the annotations. It also clarifies the ownership scope (you or your organization), which is additional context. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the core action and scope; the second delivers the critical warning. Every word earns its place, and the most important caveat is front-loaded after the verb. No fluff or redundancy.

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 single-parameter destructive action, the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, who can do it, and the irreversibility warning. There is no output schema, which is typical for delete operations. It does not mention error handling or return values, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations already flagging destructiveness, this is adequately complete. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit guidance on what happens after a successful deletion (e.g., confirmation message), but that is not required for correct invocation.

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 input schema already provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter post_urn, including a regex pattern and an example. The description does not add further parameter-specific details, but it does clarify that the post must be authored by the caller, which is contextual rather than parameter-level. Given the schema is self-sufficient, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Deletes'), the resource ('a post'), and the scope ('you (or your organization) authored'). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like linkedin_create_post, linkedin_get_post, and linkedin_list_posts by focusing solely on deletion. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and when it applies.

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 use (deleting an authored post) and a critical safety guideline ('Irreversible — confirm with the user first'). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but among the sibling tools, none other handles deletion, so the purpose alone sufficiently routes an agent. The confirmation warning is a strong usage directive.

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