Prepare a connection request

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

The annotations only tell the agent it is a non-destructive mutation; the description adds the crucial facts that it changes local state only, performs no external action, and cannot actually send. That 'no external action' guarantee is a behavioral trait the annotations do not convey and materially affects how the agent should present the result.

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 bracketed tag followed by dense but purposeful sentences; nothing is filler. Slightly heavy punctuation, but appropriately sized for a state-changing preparation step.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. Combined with the explicit no-send/no-bulk constraints, the description gives the agent everything needed to call and frame this tool 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 coverage is low (33%), and the description only restates the note's 300-char limit (already in the schema) and implies a named recipient. It does not explain recipientUrl, its LinkedIn-URL requirement, or how the agent should source those values, leaving the schema to carry most parameter meaning.

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 (prepares, not sends) and resource (a LinkedIn connection request with optional note), and immediately distinguishes itself from a send action and from bulk preparation. An agent would not confuse it with any sibling.

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?

Explicit conditions are given: 'Only for a specific person the user named' and 'Never bulk-prepare,' plus the instruction to show the preview so the user acts manually. It doesn't name a specific sibling alternative, but the constraint set is clear.

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