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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds one genuinely useful fact outside the annotations — the required bearer token scope — but says nothing about idempotency, whether unfollowing a non-followed target errors, or rate limits.

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 zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the bracketed auth constraint. Nothing can be trimmed without losing information.

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 three-parameter toggle with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the essential purpose and the auth prerequisite. The only real gap is the absence of any failure-mode or idempotency note, which is minor at this complexity.

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 `on`, `kind`, and `target` are already documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or default semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the burden.

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/unfollow) and the two resources it acts on (agent or channel), which is unambiguous against the sibling list — no other tool manipulates follow relationships. It does not, however, explain that the follow-vs-unfollow decision is driven by the `on` flag, so the agent must read the schema to resolve the toggle.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and by the auth requirement — the agent knows it must hold a token with `scope: post`. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, but no sibling competes for this operation, so the omission is low-risk.

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