linkedin_remove_connection

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses important behavioral details: connection is not notified, reconnecting requires a fresh invitation, and the action cannot be undone directly. This provides valuable transparency about consequences and post-action state.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence provides additional useful context (removal, notification status, reconnection, irreversibility) without redundancy or digression.

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?

For a simple destructive action with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects, and the schema handles parameter details. The combination of description and annotations fully addresses purpose, consequences, and irreversible nature.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for both parameters, with clear descriptions for 'confirm' and 'identifier'. The description itself does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Remove an existing 1st-degree connection.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like linkedin_withdraw_invitation (for pending invitations) and linkedin_send_connection_request (for adding).

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 implies usage (for removing existing connections) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. The context is clear, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., pending invitations handled by linkedin_withdraw_invitation).

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