Follow an account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'follow', implying a mutation, but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, idempotency (e.g., what happens if already following), or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a state-changing operation.

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 two short sentences with no redundant information. Every word contributes meaning, and the prerequisite tip is placed immediately after the main action.

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 the simplicity of the tool, the description provides the core action and a key prerequisite, but lacks behavioral context such as return values, side effects, or error handling. With no annotations or output schema, more detail would be needed to fully equip an agent.

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 schema provides only a 'did' string parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description clarifies that 'did' is the identifier type, but does not add format details, examples, or additional semantics beyond the parameter name. It partially compensates but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Follow a user by DID'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like unfollow and resolve_handle. The verb 'follow' and the resource 'user' are explicit, and the method (by DID) adds precision.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use bluesky_resolve_handle first if only a handle is available, providing a clear alternative and prerequisite. This directly addresses when to use this tool versus a sibling.

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