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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the description restates idempotency but adds the valuable detail that the call returns ok even when no follow exists, plus the 【需要登录】 login prerequisite. The login requirement is context beyond what annotations provide, though the idempotency note overlaps with the annotation.

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 compact sentences with the login prerequisite front-loaded and the idempotency guarantee second. Zero filler.

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, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers the login requirement and the return behavior (ok even when not following). It is nearly complete, with the only gap being no explicit mention of the inverse operation or error cases.

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 userId parameter is fully documented (cuid) in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource (取消关注某位主理人 = unfollow a creator) that an agent can immediately distinguish from siblings such as follow_creator and unfollow_product. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 only implied by the action itself; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to the inverse sibling follow_creator for the opposite operation. Adequate but with clear routing gaps.

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