linkedin_respond_to_invitation

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

The description discloses a useful behavioral trait—invitation list reordering—which explains why indexes are not used. It complements annotations by emphasizing non-read-only, non-idempotent operation without contradicting them.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a key usage warning. Every word earns its place with no waste.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the operation, identification method, and a behavioral caveat, making it complete for the task.

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 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only reinforcing that person is a name or public identifier. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 accepts or ignores a received connection invitation, using specific verbs and a clear resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_connection_request and withdraw_invitation by focusing on responding to received invitations.

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?

It provides clear context: use for received invitations, identify by name or public identifier. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'invitation list reorders' note guides usage effectively.

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