send_connection_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'authenticated account' (auth requirement) and the custom_note length limit, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., creating a pending invitation, sending a notification), reversibility, rate limits, or any required permissions beyond authentication. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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 sentences plus a compact argument list. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition of schema defaults.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameters. It does not explain post-send behavior or error conditions, but given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description is adequately complete for an AI agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining both parameters: profile_url is the URL of the member to connect with, and custom_note is an optional personalized message with a clear 300-character limit. This adds meaningful constraints and purpose that the schema lacks, though it could include a format example for profile_url.

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 explicitly states the action ('Send a connection invitation to a professional') and the resource ('from your authenticated account'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like manage_invitation (handling invitations) and send_message (messaging) by using the specific verb 'send' and noun 'connection invitation'.

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 purpose implies when to use the tool (when you want to initiate a connection), but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as manage_invitation or search_people. No exclusions or conditional routing are provided.

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