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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, which covers the mutation and irreversibility. The description adds the specific action types (withdraw/refuse) and the prerequisite for the request_id. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., notification to the other party) or that the action is irreversible beyond what annotations imply. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description adds some but not rich behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is stated first, followed by the key prerequisite. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description need not explain return values. It covers the two operations and the required parameter acquisition. It omits any guidance on account_id handling, but that is already detailed in the schema. For a two-parameter mutation tool with clear annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a valuable instruction for obtaining request_id via linkedin_list_invitations, which is not fully explicit in the schema's parameter description (though schema does mention 'Obtain with: linkedin_list_invitations'). This actionable guidance improves the semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verbs ('Withdraw', 'refuse') with a clear resource ('sent LinkedIn invitation', 'received invitation'). It distinguishes between the two operations and implicitly differentiates from siblings like linkedin_accept_invitation and linkedin_send_invitation. The phrase 'First list the relevant invitations' also clarifies the workflow.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: to withdraw a sent or refuse a received invitation. It gives a practical prerequisite (obtain request_id via linkedin_list_invitations) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use linkedin_accept_invitation for accepting'). The context is clear enough for an agent to decide, so not a 5.

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