Send a connection request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context by mentioning the quota-checked endpoint and that LinkedIn invite limits surface as clear errors. However, it does not disclose other side effects, authentication requirements, or what happens on success.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every clause adds relevant information about the action, the endpoint behavior, and error handling.

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 only two string parameters, and the description provides the core purpose plus an important behavioral caveat about invite limits. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter-level details, important context about return values and parameter formats is still 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only references the 'note' parameter implicitly ('with a note') and does not explain the profileUrn format, note length, or any constraints. This leaves the agent under-informed about how to fill both required parameters correctly.

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 action ('Sends a connection request') and the resource, making it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like respond_invitation or follow. The phrase 'with a note' also adds necessary specificity about the request's contents.

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 implies when to use the tool—sending a new connection request—but it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or conditions for avoiding this tool. The context is sufficient to infer the primary use case, but no exclusions are provided.

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