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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-annotation context: the action is queued rather than immediate, it requires a Standard/Pro plan, and only invites older than the threshold are targeted. It stops short of covering reversibility or what happens to invites just under the threshold.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: plan constraint, scope/effect, threshold behavior, and a prerequisite. The plan limitation and the preview prerequisite are front-loaded where they matter most.

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys the action is queued and that preview should be run first to gauge impact. It leaves minor gaps around queue timing/execution and whether the withdrawal can be undone, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents campaignId, daysThreshold, withdrawLimit, and linkedinConnectionId in detail. The description's mention that only invites older than daysThreshold are targeted restates the schema rather than adding syntax or behavior detail. 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Queue withdrawal of') plus resource ('stale pending LinkedIn connection invites') and scope ('for a specific campaign or all campaigns on a LinkedIn sender account'). An agent can distinguish this from sibling preview_withdraw_connections based on the description alone.

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?

States an explicit eligibility constraint ('Standard/Pro plans only') and an explicit prerequisite/ordering rule ('Use preview_withdraw_connections first to see how many will be affected'). This routes the agent to the correct sibling before invoking the destructive action.

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