Draft a message

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

Annotations only declare generic hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false); the description adds the substantive behavior: changes local state only, nothing is transmitted, and the tool cannot send at all. It also states the 2000-char cap and that the draft must be surfaced to the user. No contradiction with the annotations, since writing a local draft is consistent with readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with the bracketed safety tag, then purpose, then usage rules, then workflow instruction. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation; the description covers the safety profile, recipient/length constraints, and the user-review workflow an agent needs to invoke this correctly. No material gap remains for a 3-param local-state tool.

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 coverage is 33% (only recipientUrl documented in the schema). The description restates the 2000-char message limit but adds no meaning for recipientName or recipientUrl beyond the schema, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 for a low-coverage 3-param tool.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Stores a DRAFT LinkedIn message') with an explicit [PREPARE] tag and the crucial scope limit 'performs NO external action; Nothing is sent'. It clearly distinguishes itself from send/action siblings and from the found-recruiter case.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('only when the user asked for a message to a specific person') and an explicit when-not ('never because a recruiter was merely found'), plus the follow-up workflow ('show the draft so the user can send it manually'). Nothing is left to inference.

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