Prepare LinkedIn Message

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it opens a visible conversation, uses the exact profile Message button or Messaging href, creates an immutable draft, hash-locks attachments, allows exactly one KLIPY GIF, and optionally a reply_to_message_ref. These complement the idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false without 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 packs substantial detail into three sentences. The first sentence is a long, convoluted run-on that is hard to parse, though it is front-loaded with the core action. The following two sentences are clear and direct.

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 complex 9-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the description covers behavioral constraints and exclusions well, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, key parameters like context_id and request_id are left unexplained, and the interplay between profile_slug, conversation_id, and conversation_ref is ambiguous.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description references message, gif, attachments, and reply_to_message_ref conceptually but does not clearly explain the mandatory context_id, request_id, or the conversation/profile identifiers (profile_slug, conversation_id, conversation_ref). This leaves the agent to guess at crucial routing and correlation parameters.

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 opens a one-to-one conversation and creates an immutable draft, explicitly noting it does not send. It distinguishes itself from the sibling execute tool by saying 'This does not send the message' and lists excluded conversation types.

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 gives clear context: use this to prepare but not send a message, with explicit exclusions (group chats, message requests, paid InMail). It implies the companion execute tool for sending, though it doesn't name it directly or provide a formal when/when-not split.

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