Connect With Person

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by explicitly stating that MCP clients will prompt for user confirmation due to the destructiveHint. This helps the agent anticipate the user interaction. No contradiction with annotations.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by a relevant note about the destructive annotation. Every sentence contributes value, with no fluff.

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 simple, the schema documents all parameters, and annotations cover safety. The description provides purpose and the confirmation behavior. It lacks mention of how the tool decides between sending and accepting, but that may be determined by context (e.g., presence of an incoming request). Overall adequate.

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% for both parameters (linkedin_username and note), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 tool's function: sending a LinkedIn connection request or accepting an incoming one. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_message or get_inbox.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use this tool to connect with someone on LinkedIn. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use send_message instead).

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