Send Message

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

The description explicitly warns that this is a write operation when confirm_send is True, which adds useful side-effect context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It also states the recipient must be directly messageable, giving the agent an important precondition. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 core purpose, followed by the key prerequisite and side-effect warning. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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 destructiveHint annotation, an output schema, and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It communicates the prerequisite and the guarded write behavior, though it could briefly mention that messages are not necessarily retrievable afterward or suggest a verification path, which the schema partially does via search_conversations.

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 schema already documents all parameters well. Baseline 3 applies because the description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema; however, the schema descriptions themselves are informative, especially for profile_urn and confirm_send.

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 sends a message to a LinkedIn user, which distinguishes it from connection requests, comments, and profile lookups. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the action and resource are specific enough for an agent to understand the core function.

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 a key prerequisite: the recipient must be directly messageable from the profile page, and it notes that confirm_send controls whether the message is actually sent. It does not explicitly state when to use this over connect_with_person or comment_on_post, but the parameter descriptions offer some contextual guidance like using get_person_profile for the URN and search_conversations as a fallback.

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