send_connection_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'send a connection request' without disclosing behavioral traits like side effects, notifications, rate limits, or failure conditions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, concise and front-loaded. However, it includes a redundant internal action reference 'st.sendConnectionRequest action' that adds no value.

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 no output schema and 3 parameters, the description is too minimal. It lacks information about the response format, error handling, or how this tool fits among many siblings. The agent would need additional context to use it effectively.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain the optional note's impact or the email requirement context.

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 sends a connection request to a person, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like withdraw_connection_request. However, it could be more explicit about the platform (LinkedIn) and scope.

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 provides no usage guidance. It does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_connection_status or send_message. No prerequisites or contexts are mentioned.

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