Follow or unfollow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states the basic follow/unfollow action. It does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, whether it requires authentication, or what happens when the target is already followed or unfollowed. This is a noticeable gap for a state-changing tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff; the action and target types are immediately visible. Small deduction for cryptic jargon ('SDUI', 'Voyager patch') that adds confusion without earning 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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation in the description, this one-liner is barely adequate. It omits important context such as urn semantics, idempotency, permission requirements, and expected response behavior, so an agent may need to make unsupported assumptions.

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, yet it only mentions 'person' and 'company,' which maps to the kind parameter. It does not explain the urn identifier format or clarify the boolean semantics of follow, leaving an agent to infer key input meaning from the schema alone.

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 action ('Follows or unfollows') and the resource types ('a person' or 'a company'), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like connect, but the verb and resource are specific enough to avoid major confusion. The unexplained abbreviations 'SDUI' and 'Voyager patch' slightly reduce clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as connect, respond_invitation, or endorse_skill. The only usage cue is implied by the word 'Follows,' with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or decision rules for person versus company.

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