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

Adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: the login requirement (auth need), the social consequence that mutual follows become friends, and that friend-visible links then become visible. It also explains the no-op semantics behind idempotentHint. Annotations already cover safety (non-destructive, idempotent, openWorld), so this is useful 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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the login requirement, then behavior, idempotency, and id sourcing. Every sentence carries information; the idempotency note slightly overlaps the annotation but adds the 'no-op' detail.

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?

No output schema, one parameter, and full annotation coverage. The description covers auth, side effects, idempotency, and parameter sourcing, which is sufficient for a simple one-param mutation. Minor omissions like error behavior do not detract meaningfully.

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 100% and the cuid type is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by telling the agent where to source the id (list_creators / get_creator), which is a practical hint not present in 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 specific verb (关注/follow) and resource (主理人/creator), immediately distinguishing it from the sibling unfollow_creator. An agent knows exactly what the tool does 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 context and prerequisites: login is required, and it explicitly tells the agent to obtain the id via list_creators / get_creator first. It does not state when-not to use or name unfollow_creator as the counterpart, but the usage guidance is otherwise strong and actionable.

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