friendship

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the most important trait: this is a write action gated behind explicit confirmation and a confirm=true flag. It stops short of describing side effects on timelines, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the operation mapping and the safety guardrail both front-loaded. 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the critical confirmation protocol. Remaining gaps are minor: whether unfollow also requires confirmation, and what a failed or rejected call returns.

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 compensate — and it does for the two non-obvious parameters: action ('create'=follow, 'destroy'=unfollow) and confirm (must be true for the write). user_id is self-evident from the name, leaving only minor gaps.

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 the two specific operations (follow/unfollow) and maps them to the action values, fully disambiguating the opaque name 'friendship'. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like favorite or post_status 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?

It states a clear precondition for use: only call after the user has explicitly confirmed the exact action and content in chat. It doesn't name alternative tools or when-not-to-use cases, but no sibling overlaps with follow/unfollow semantics.

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