Send Prepared LinkedIn Message

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the account-changing nature, immutability, server verification steps (preview, payload and asset hashes, draft expiry, recipient, idempotency), and the exact visible outgoing postcondition. This adds critical context that destructiveHint and idempotentHint only hint at, with no contradiction.

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 appropriately concise at around 70 words, front-loading the safety warning before the functional description. The final long sentence is dense but packs relevant detail without excessive verbosity.

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?

The description covers the core behavior, approval requirements, and verification steps in a way that is largely complete for an execute tool. Since an output schema exists, explaining return values is unnecessary. It lacks explicit linkage to the prepare sibling, but the context is otherwise sufficient.

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 only 33% (action_id and payload_hash have descriptions). The tool description mentions concepts like preview, payload hashes, and idempotency, but does not map them to parameters or explain the purpose of context_id, request_id, idempotency_key, or approval_preview. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 identifies the action as sending a LinkedIn message with the specific verb 'Send' and resource 'prepared LinkedIn message' in the title. It further specifies 'exactly one immutable text/file message or immediate-send GIF' and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the execute step after preparation.

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 explicitly conditions invocation on approval policy ('Invoke only when... authorizes') and defaults to interactive confirmation, providing clear authorization guidance. However, it does not explicitly reference the prepare tool (linkedin.messaging.message.prepare) or state when not to use this tool versus alternatives; the connection to preparation is implied rather than stated.

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