Withdraw Connection Request

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say the withdrawal is irreversible, that the target must still have a pending request, or what happens if the request was already accepted. The schema's dry_run parameter is never mentioned in the description.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriate for a narrow action. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps noted in other dimensions.

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 not be explained, and annotations cover the destructive/open-world profile. Still, for a destructive mutation the description omits prerequisites and irreversibility, leaving it minimally adequate rather than complete.

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% and both parameters (name, dry_run) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about how 'name' is matched or what dry_run returns, so it does not rise above the baseline.

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 states a specific verb (withdraw) and resource (a previously sent connection request), and the phrase 'previously sent' usefully scopes it to the user's own outgoing request rather than an inbound invitation. It does not, however, name the adjacent sibling (decline_invitation) or otherwise anchor itself against the many other connection-related tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus decline_invitation, list_pending_invitations, or connect_with_person, nor any stated prerequisite (e.g. the request must still be pending). The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name.

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