Send a LinkedIn connection request

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) by detailing concrete side effects: no click or send without confirm, quota consumption, note truncation limits per account type, and refusal before quota is spent. This level of transparency is exemplary.

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 dense but every sentence adds critical information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and handshake, then layers on parameter details, refusal conditions, and quotas. No 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?

Given the tool's complexity (two-call handshake, refusals, dry-run, quotas, note limits), the description covers every operational aspect. Without an output schema, it explains what the preview returns and what confirm does. An agent can safely and correctly invoke this tool without further context.

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 0% (no descriptions in the schema), so the description carries full burden. It explains profileUrl accepts slug or URL, note has 300-char cap (200 for free accounts with silent truncation), confirm triggers the actual send, and previewToken is part of the handshake. All four parameters are clarified.

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 sends a connection invitation to a member, optionally with a note, and explicitly describes the two-call handshake. It distinguishes itself from siblings like send_message or create_post by focusing on the connection request action and its preview/confirm flow.

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?

Provides explicit usage instructions: the two-call pattern (preview then confirm), when requests are refused (already 1st-degree, pending invite, no Connect control), and the dry-run behavior. It clarifies when not to call with confirm:true immediately, covering usage conditions thoroughly.

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