send_linkedin_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that both text and voice messages are supported via message and audioUrl parameters. However, it does not mention permission requirements, rate limits, success/error behavior, or what happens when the LinkedIn message fails to send (e.g., lead not found, privacy restrictions).

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 covers the core functionality and necessary input conditions efficiently. While concise, it could be slightly improved by front-loading the action more directly (e.g., 'Send a LinkedIn message to a lead...') which it already does. No extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (including two pairs of conditional requirements) and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, message ID) or error handling. For a communication tool with complex prerequisites, mentioning the output or failure modes would improve completeness.

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 documents all six parameters clearly. The description adds value by summarizing the mutual exclusivity of leadId/linkedinUrl and message/audioUrl, which is not explicitly stated in the schema. This context helps the agent understand parameter dependencies beyond individual descriptions.

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 ('Send a LinkedIn text or voice message'), the target class ('to a lead'), and the required input conditions (either leadId or linkedinUrl, and either message or audioUrl). This distinguishes it from siblings like send_email_message which targets email, not LinkedIn.

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 explicitly specifies the condition for using the tool (requires leadId or linkedinUrl, and either message or audioUrl), which is helpful. However, it does not provide guidance on when NOT to use it or point to an alternative tool for similar purposes (e.g., use send_email_message for email), though the sibling list implicitly differentiates.

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