Connect With Person

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

The description mostly restates the destructiveHint annotation by saying MCP clients will prompt for confirmation. It does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond that, such as irreversibility, notification to the recipient, authentication requirements, or rate-limit implications.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence about destructiveHint is slightly redundant with the annotations, but it communicates the user-confirmation behavior clearly and does not add much bulk.

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?

With two well-documented parameters and an output schema present, the description is mostly sufficient for invoking the tool correctly. It lacks explicit guidance on when to accept versus send, or on side effects, but these are not critical given the schema and annotations.

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%, so the parameter docs already explain linkedin_username and note in detail. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema 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 clearly states the specific action: send or accept a LinkedIn connection request. It names the exact resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_message or search_people.

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 makes it clear this tool handles connection requests and acceptances, which provides usable context for when to choose it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the action is specific enough to avoid major ambiguity.

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