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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world write, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the operation writes to the chain and produces an unsigned transaction that has no effect until signed and submitted. It omits reversibility and any fee/auth implications, but the intent lifecycle disclosure is substantial.

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 tight sentences: the action first, then the critical constraint and follow-up tool names. Nothing is redundant and the most important caveat (nothing happens until you sign) is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential mechanic an agent must know (intent, sign, submit) and names the exact companion tools. It leaves out return/result details, but no output schema exists so that is a minor gap.

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%, with both signer and unfollow documented as SS58 addresses and signer's local-signing requirement explained in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 and resource ('Stop following an account'), and the name/verb pairing directly contrasts with the sibling geode_social_follow_account. An agent can distinguish it from the follow and block siblings without opening the schema.

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 clear workflow context: this only prepares an unsigned intent, and must be completed via geode-local-signer plus geode_submit_intent. It does not state when to prefer this over geode_social_block_account or other relationship tools, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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