Connect With Person

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

The description repeats the destructiveHint annotation and explains that clients will prompt for user confirmation, adding context. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as error handling, idempotency, or what happens if the user is already connected.

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 two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the key action. It could be slightly more structured, but no words are wasted.

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 destructiveHint tool, the description lacks important context: no mention of return value (despite output schema existing), success/failure conditions, or edge cases like already being connected. This leaves the agent underspecified.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain note length limits or best practices for the note parameter.

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's purpose: 'Send a LinkedIn connection request or accept an incoming one.' This is a specific verb+resource pair, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like send_message or get_person_profile.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., send_message). It does not mention prerequisites, context for acceptance vs sending, or when not to use it.

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