Send Message

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint, and the description adds that this is a write operation gated on confirm_send=True, which is valuable conditional behavior. It disambiguates when the actual side effect occurs and does not contradict 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 short sentences: the first states the core action, the second adds a key precondition and side-effect condition. No filler or redundant phrase.

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 rich input schema (100% coverage, output schema present) and annotations, the description is complete enough. It conveys the essential prerequisite and write behavior without needing to restate schema details.

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%, with all four parameters already well-documented (including profile_urn bypass and confirm_send gating). The main description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('a LinkedIn user'), clearly distinguishing the tool from read-only inbox/conversation tools and connection-request tools. The recipient-messageable constraint clarifies the intended action.

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 a clear precondition ('recipient must be directly messageable from the profile page') and notes the write-operation behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling set and schema guidance provide enough context.

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