linkedin_send_message

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

No annotations are provided, leaving the description to carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action and required scope, but it does not disclose that this is a write operation with potential side effects (sending a message), nor does it mention irreversibility, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The term 'send' implies a mutation, but explicit behavioral context is missing.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with the scope requirement. It is minimal and every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with 3 parameters and no output schema, yet the description omits key behavioral details like what the response resembles, whether it is irreversible, and any message length limits. It also does not mention that messages can only be sent to first-degree connections, although 'connection' hints at this. Given no annotations or output schema, more context would be beneficial, but the core purpose and scope are covered.

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 has 100% coverage; all three parameters already have descriptive text. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as format constraints or usage patterns. Since the schema clearly documents recipientUrn and messageBody, the baseline 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 verb ('send') and resource ('message to a connection'). It also adds a specific requirement (w_member_social scope) which further clarifies the tool's function. No sibling tools overlap with this messaging capability, so there is no ambiguity about what it does.

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 by stating the prerequisite scope, which is a necessary condition for using the tool. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, the absence of any sibling messaging tools makes those exclusions unnecessary. The scope requirement effectively guides the agent on when this tool is applicable.

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