send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and arguments; it does not disclose potential irreversible effects, failure modes, rate limits, or whether an active login or recipient relationship is required. The description adds little beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a minimal argument list. There is no filler or redundant information; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 two-parameter action tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic mechanics. It is incomplete for a LinkedIn messaging context because it omits login preconditions, recipient eligibility requirements, and common error scenarios—details that matter when the sibling set includes authentication and messaging tools.

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 Args section gives plain-language meanings for both parameters ('Profile URL of the recipient', 'message body to send'), which helps because schema description coverage is 0%. However, it largely restates the property names and provides no URL format, message length constraints, or other validation details, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('Send a direct message to a LinkedIn member') and names the arguments. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_connection_request, create_post, or get_conversation_messages without needing to inspect schemas.

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 statement implies the main use case—send a direct message as the authenticated user—and 'from your authenticated account' gives some context. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose this over send_connection_request, manage_invitation, or get_conversation_messages, nor does it mention preconditions like being logged in or recipient connection status.

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