x_api_follow_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does exceptionally well. It states 'Risk: mutating, high-risk,' gives required OAuth scopes and token types, explains environment-selection behavior, lists common failure conditions, and includes safety warnings about mutating X state. This is far beyond minimal disclosure.

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 organized into labeled sections (Risk, Required permissions, Environment-selection behavior, Parameter formats, Expected response, Common failures, Recommended tools, Safety warnings, Example) which makes it scannable and front-loaded. It is longer than average but every section adds value, except the redundant opening tautology.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and zero annotation coverage, the description is remarkably complete. It provides expected response shape, common failure conditions, prerequisites, environment selection behavior, and an example. Still, the vague operation description and missing details for authorizationKey and preferredAuthType keep it from being fully complete.

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. It clarifies id as a required path parameter, body as the payload, and explains the roles of scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey in auth resolution. However, it does not explain authorizationKey or preferredAuthType, and the body payload shape is left as 'documented request payload' without further detail.

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 opens with 'Follow List.' which is a tautology that simply restates the tool name, and 'Use when: Follow List.' repeats the same. It does not specify a clear verb+resource or explain what the tool actually does, nor does it distinguish it from sibling tools like x_api_unfollow_list or x_api_get_users_followed_lists.

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 provides a 'Do not use when' section with explicit exclusions (e.g., exploring, needing auth/config tools) and names x_schema_discovery and x_query_suggestion as alternatives. However, the 'Use when' section is tautological ('Follow List.'), offering no real guidance on when this tool is preferred over similar list-related mutation tools.

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