withdraw_connection_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that actions are queued into a cloud-browser workflow, the server returns immediately with a status object, retries can cause duplicate withdrawals, and how pending reasons like 'queued' and 'outsideWorkingHours' affect polling and user communication.

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 well-structured into paragraphs but is somewhat overlong and contains redundancy. The warning about not retrying while a workflow is running appears twice (first and second paragraphs), and some workflow mechanics could be condensed without losing value.

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 tool's async workflow complexity and lack of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the immediate response shape, how to obtain the final result via get_workflow_result, long-polling behavior, and how to handle different pending reasons, leaving no major gaps for an agent to act correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to personUrl or unfollow beyond what the schema already provides; it focuses on workflow behavior rather than parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'withdraw the connection request sent to a person' and names the underlying action (st.withdrawConnectionRequest). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like send_connection_request, check_connection_status, and remove_connection.

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 operational context: when the workflow is running, do not retry; instead call get_workflow_result with the returned workflowId and operationName. It also explains how to handle 'queued' and 'outsideWorkingHours' pending reasons. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the usage context is strong.

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