linkedin_connect

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses that the action is visible to the recipient and that confirm=true is mandatory. It stops short of covering rate limits, what happens if the invitation is already pending, or the result of the call.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action first, then the note constraint, then the visibility/confirmation caveat. No filler, nothing repeated unnecessarily.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisites (confirm=true) and side-effect visibility. It omits failure modes and post-send state, leaving a moderate gap.

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 67%; the schema already documents target (URL/public identifier) and confirm, and maxLength=300 already encodes the note limit that the description restates. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Envía una invitación a conectar'), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like linkedin_follow or linkedin_message. It does not, however, explicitly name those alternatives to sharpen the distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to send a connection invite versus using linkedin_follow, linkedin_message, or linkedin_invitations. The closest thing to a condition is the confirm=true prerequisite, which is a safety gate rather than usage guidance.

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