linkedin_send_inmail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states that InMail credits are required and that dryRun previews without sending, but it does not describe response behavior, failure modes, or consequences of an actual send beyond the obvious.

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 filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives the most important usage instruction. It avoids restating schema details or repeating the tool name.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the prerequisite and preview workflow. However, it does not mention return values, success/failure signals, or edge cases like invalid profiles or exhausted credits, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 already describes all parameters, including max lengths and the dryRun default, so the baseline is 3. The description adds operational emphasis on dryRun usage but does not need to redefine parameter semantics. Schema coverage is 100%, so no compensation is required.

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 states a specific action ('Send an InMail message') and target ('lead on LinkedIn Sales Navigator'), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools that read profiles, search, save, or export leads. It adds platform and object context beyond the tool name.

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 procedural guidance: always preview first with dryRun=true before sending, and notes that dryRun=false preserves prior behavior. It does not name sibling alternatives or conditions to avoid use, but for a send operation the instruction is clear and actionable.

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