Connect With Person

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, and the description adds that 'MCP clients will prompt for user confirmation before execution,' which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not explain side effects beyond confirmation, such as potential duplicate requests or permission requirements, leaving room for more transparency.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It leads with the primary purpose and then notes the annotation implication. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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 tool with a clear action (connection request/accept), full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficiently complete. It doesn't need to elaborate on return values since an output schema exists, and the action is straightforward. Minor gaps like error handling or idempotency could be added, but they aren't essential.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (linkedin_username and note), so schema description coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what is already in the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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's function: 'Send a LinkedIn connection request or accept an incoming one.' This specifies the verb (send/accept) and resource (connection request), and distinguishes it from siblings like send_message and get_inbox, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 when to use the tool by stating its purpose, but it does not explicitly provide context or alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or comparisons to similar tools, so the guidance is only implicit.

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