Connect With Person

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

The description merely restates the destructiveHint annotation, adding no new behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. It does not mention state changes, authorization needs, or potential irreversible actions.

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. The second sentence about annotations is somewhat redundant given the annotations field already exists, but it does not waste words.

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 presence of an output schema and only two parameters, the description is adequate for basic use but lacks details on error handling (e.g., duplicate requests, invalid usernames) and broader behavioral context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'optional note').

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 verb (send/accept) and resource (LinkedIn connection request). It distinguishes the tool from siblings which handle profiles, conversations, jobs, etc.

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 implies that the tool is for sending or accepting requests but does not explicitly guide when to use it versus alternatives like 'search_people' or 'get_person_profile'. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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