send_linkedin_chat_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Account ID source but lacks critical details such as rate limits, error handling, whether the message is sent immediately or queued, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool (sending messages) with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, but it could be slightly more structured by separating the authentication note into a second sentence for clarity.

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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool (sending messages) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., success/failure responses, side effects), and while the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is incomplete.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 ('send a chat message') and the target platform ('via LinkedIn management API'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_linkedin_connection' or 'send_linkedin_post', which would require a 5.

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 mentions that 'Account ID is taken from environment,' which provides some context about authentication, but it doesn't offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'send_linkedin_connection' or 'send_linkedin_post'), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

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