send_connection_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that the default mode performs no write, reports readiness/connected/pending statuses, never adds a note, and that confirm=true is required to actually send the invitation. This gives an agent an accurate mental model of side effects and safety.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose, then the safety-critical confirm=false behavior, then the confirmation rule. The Args section is minimal and directly maps to each parameter without redundancy or filler.

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 an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool does, its no-write default, the conditions for actually sending, the statuses it reports, and the one constraint about notes. No critical behavioral context is missing.

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 0%, so the description must define the parameters, and it does. 'linkedin_username: Exact LinkedIn profile username/slug' adds precision beyond the bare schema, and 'confirm: Must be true to actually send the invitation' explains the distinguishing semantics of the boolean rather than relying on its default value alone.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Preview or send a LinkedIn connection request without a note.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling search/profile tools by focusing on the connection-request action, and the 'never adds a note' qualifier removes ambiguity about the operation's 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 gives explicit usage guidance: default confirm=false performs no write and is a preview, while confirm=true should only be set 'after verifying the exact profile.' It implies the right workflow but stops short of naming a specific sibling like get_person_profile for verification, so it does not fully spell out when to use alternatives.

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