Follow / unfollow

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuine value by explaining WHY the call is not idempotent — a second call reverses the relationship. However it never surfaces the destructive implication flagged in the annotations, i.e. that an accidental call silently removes an existing follow, nor does it mention auth or rate limits. Useful addition, but a material safety gap remains.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the primary behavior front-loaded and the parameter-sourcing hint appended. Nothing restates the title or the annotations.

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 one-parameter toggle with safety annotations already present, the core is covered. But there is no output schema, and the description never says what comes back — an agent cannot tell whether the response reports the resulting follow state or nothing at all, which matters for a state-flipping operation.

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 for the single user_id parameter. It does identify the value as a user id and points to get_user as the source, which is real added meaning. It does not clarify that no handle/username form is accepted, and the schema's odd allowance of negative integers goes unremarked.

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 specific resource (a user) and states both branches of the operation: it follows, or unfollows when already following. That toggle semantics distinguishes it clearly from unrelated siblings and makes the verb unambiguous. It stops short of a 5 only because it never contrasts itself with the other toggle_* siblings (toggle_like, toggle_repost), leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the resource name.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description establishes that this is the single entry point for both follow and unfollow, and hints that the id should come from get_user. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, no prerequisites about knowing the current follow state before calling, and no warning about double-invocation flipping the state back.

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