opportunities_add_followers_opportunity

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

The description provides no behavioral details beyond the bare action. Annotations are sparse (no readOnly, no destructive, openWorld true), so the description should explain effects, but it doesn't. It fails to disclose whether followers are appended, replaced, validated, or any side effects, leaving the agent without critical behavioral information.

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?

The description is extremely short, which might seem concise, but it is under-specified. It merely repeats the tool name in a slightly shorter form and omits essential information. It does not front-load useful content and does not earn its place as a helpful summary.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description is critically incomplete. An agent would not know what 'followers' are, how they are added, or any constraints or side effects. The description does nothing to fill the gaps left by the schema and annotations, making it inadequate for correct invocation.

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?

The description adds nothing to the parameter semantics. The schema provides a basic description for 'id' but none for 'followers', and the description 'Add Followers' does not clarify what constitutes a follower, the expected format, or the relationship to the opportunity. The description fails to compensate for the incomplete schema coverage.

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 'Add Followers' is vague and does not specify the resource (opportunity). It is essentially a shorter version of the tool name without stating that it affects opportunities. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like contacts_add_followers_contact, leaving ambiguity about which entity the followers are added to.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like opportunities_remove_followers_opportunity or contacts_add_followers_contact. The description offers no context about prerequisites, conditions, or situations where this tool is appropriate.

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