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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description goes beyond by adding plan gating (Standard/Pro only), the stale-invite targeting rule (older than daysThreshold), and the campaign-vs-all-campaigns branching. It doesn't describe reversibility of withdrawal or rate-limit implications, which would earn a 5.

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 leading bracketed 'Ids in / Ids out' block is compact but somewhat cryptic and comes before the purpose statement. The core prose is front-loaded with plan restriction then action, which reads well, but the parenthetical ID block adds noise for an agent that mainly needs behavior.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers plan gating, eligibility, scoping, and the recommended preview step. It doesn't state whether queued withdrawals can be cancelled or what the response contains, leaving a small gap for a destructive action.

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 already 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description references the preview output path (breakdown[].campaignId) for the campaignId param, which is a helpful cross-reference, but otherwise adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Queue withdrawal of stale pending LinkedIn connection invites') with scope (campaign vs all campaigns on a sender account). The word 'Queue' and 'only invites older than daysThreshold' clarify the exact action, distinguishing it from the sibling withdraw_invitation (singular) and preview_withdraw_invitations.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to 'Use preview_withdraw_invitations first' and names the alternative (preview vs actual withdrawal). Also states the plan restriction (Standard/Pro only) and the eligibility condition (invites older than daysThreshold days).

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