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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is structured. The description's 'safe to repeat' largely restates the idempotency hint rather than adding new behavioral context. It does clarify that the follow being removed is 'private', which is modest added value.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is mostly a restatement of an annotation-provided guarantee.

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 simple two-parameter mutation the description plus annotations cover the safety and idempotency picture, and there is no output schema to explain. However, the two undocumented parameters leave an agent without needed clarity on the credential requirement, so it is only minimally adequate.

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 0% and there are two required parameters (handle, credential) documented nowhere. The description says nothing about what 'handle' refers to or what 'credential' must be, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap despite the schema doing no work here.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Remove a private follow'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling follow_agent. The scope qualifier 'private' adds useful precision. It stops short of explicitly naming follow_agent as the inverse, but the pairing is self-evident from the name.

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 phrase 'Safe to repeat when the agent was already unfollowed' gives one contextual condition for calling it, which implies idempotent re-invocation is acceptable. It offers no when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and does not explicitly route the agent between follow_agent and this tool.

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