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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, and the description usefully reinforces this by stating it is an idempotent desired state rather than a toggle and that it does not save a list or enable email. It does not mention auth/permission requirements or what unfollowing removes, so it stops short of the richest disclosure, but it adds real context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource, then idempotency, then exclusions. No redundant or filler text; every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity two-param write tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical concerns (idempotent semantics, no toggle, no side effects on lists/email). It is essentially complete, with only minor omissions around permissions or return behavior.

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 0%, so the description must carry the param burden. It does: handle identifies the curator, and 'following' is clarified as a desired-state boolean, not a toggle, which resolves the key ambiguity an agent would face with a bare boolean.

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 pair (follow/unfollow) and the resource (curator), keyed by handle. It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly ruling out saving a list and enabling email, which an agent could otherwise confuse with the save_list/save_item family.

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 usage context: sets an explicit desired state and is 'never a toggle', which tells the agent how to call it. It also implicitly excludes list-saving and email-notification behavior, though it does not name a specific alternative tool for those goals.

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