linkedin_connection_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the character limit, draft limit exemption, and style guidance (no pitch, genuine hook). It does not mention if the message is sent immediately or saved as a draft, but the core behavioral constraints are well documented.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, provides actionable guidelines, and ends with a reassuring note about draft limits. No unnecessary sentences.

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?

There is no output schema. The description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the crafted message text, a confirmation, or an error). For a tool that generates content, knowing the output format is important for the agent to handle the result correctly.

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 100%, with all four parameters described. The description adds value by emphasizing specificity for 'reason_to_connect' and advising brevity for 'your_service' (5 words or fewer). This enhances the schema descriptions.

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 writes a LinkedIn connection request message to a potential client or collaborator. It distinguishes from sibling 'linkedin_post' and other tools by focusing on private messages, not public posts or emails.

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 advises to be specific, low-pressure, and name a real reason to connect, avoiding pitches. It mentions the 300-character limit and that it doesn't count against draft limit. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or name alternatives for non-connection scenarios.

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