Send Message

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

Annotations include destructiveHint and openWorldHint, which already signal caution. The description adds value by specifying the write operation is conditional on confirm_send and highlighting the messageability prerequisite, giving the agent a clearer behavioral model beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose and containing only essential constraints. No filler or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 presence of annotations, a detailed input schema, and an output schema, the description provides the key contextual constraint (direct messageability) and the conditional mutation behavior. It could mention what happens if confirm_send is False or the recipient is not messageable, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this tool's complexity.

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 100%, and all parameters have meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level details, but since the schema fully documents each parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 message') and the target ('a LinkedIn user'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_inbox or search_conversations. It is specific, concise, and immediately understandable.

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 provides an important usage condition ('recipient must be directly messageable from the profile page') and clarifies that sending only occurs when confirm_send is True. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool fulfills the same sending role, so this is adequate.

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