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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but do not explain the mixed read/write nature of the tool. The description usefully discloses that the same call can mutate follow state (on: false stops following) or perform pure reads (profile page, following feed), which an agent must know to pick it safely. It omits failure behavior (unknown pseudonym) and any rate or auth notes.

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?

A single dense sentence using semicolons to separate three modes, with the primary action front-loaded. It is efficient and wastes little, though the clause stacking makes mode boundaries slightly harder to scan than a short list would.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and annotations that cover only safety hints, the description supplies the mode-selection logic an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Remaining gaps are the meaning of 'limit' and what the profile/feed responses contain, both minor for this tool's 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 coverage is only 25%, and the description compensates for two parameters: it explains that 'author' is a pseudonym (not an id) and that 'on: false' means unfollow, with omission meaning profile view. The 'limit' parameter is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, and 'user_id' is covered only by the schema.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Follow an author of shared presets (by pseudonym), or stop'), and names the identifier semantics (pseudonym). It also discloses that the tool has extra modes (author page view, following-feed listing) that the name alone would not convey. Differentiation from siblings like favorite_preset is implied but not stated.

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 effectively routes between the tool's modes by parameter combination: 'on: false' to unfollow, 'author alone and on omitted' shows a profile page, and 'without author' lists the following feed. This is strong conditional guidance. It does not, however, contrast against alternatives such as favorite_preset or find_presets for discovering presets.

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