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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: replies arrive in the case thread and are also emailed to followers, every company member can see/answer every case, files cannot be attached here (web app only), and writes are labeled "via AI agent". It does not explicitly state that following persists as a subscription until unfollow_support_case, which is the one behavioral detail an agent must infer from the verb plus readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then behavior; each sentence carries information an agent needs. Slightly verbose with some overlap between the title/opening line and the body (the idempotency tag is repeated), but nothing is 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 one-parameter tool with a rich annotation set, the description covers purpose, routing away from issue tools, notification behavior, permissions, and limitations. No output schema exists, and the description still conveys what the caller/user receives.

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% and the single case_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (pattern, ULID format, spec reference). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (follow) plus resource (support case) and the concrete effect (the user receives the case's emails and bell items). It explicitly separates support cases from issue tools (create_issue, search_issues) and is clearly distinct from siblings like get_support_case and unfollow_support_case.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use (user wants help from the BoardMark team or reports a bug, sign-in, billing, or feature request), an explicit when-not (never for the user's own project work — that is issues), and a behavioral gate ("Only when the user asks"). Nothing is left to inference.

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