x_api_follow_user

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the tool is mutating and high-risk, warns that it mutates X state, lists required OAuth scopes, explains environment-selection behavior for auth resolution, describes expected response shape, and enumerates common failure conditions. This is exemplary transparency for a mutation 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 lengthy but well-structured with labeled sections (e.g., Risk, Required permissions, Expected response, Common failures). Each section provides substantive information without redundancy. It is not maximally concise, but the organized format aids scanning and comprehension, justifying the length given the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers a wide range of contextual details: authentication requirements, environment selection, response format, failure conditions, and safety warnings. It omits explicit parameter descriptions for authorizationKey and preferredAuthType, and does not mention what happens if the user is already followed. However, given the 8-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is substantially complete and would guide an agent effectively.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains id is a required path parameter and body is the payload, and it clarifies the role of scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey in auth resolution. However, it does not explain authorizationKey or preferredAuthType, leaving two parameters undocumented. The description adds value but is incomplete for full parameter understanding.

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 User,' which directly restates the tool name and lacks specification of what following entails (e.g., creating a follow relationship). It is distinguishable from siblings like x_api_unfollow_user by name, but the description itself does not articulate the scope or effect beyond the verb. The additional context about mutating state adds some clarity, but the core purpose statement is essentially a tautology.

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 includes 'Use when: Follow User,' which is tautological, but it also provides explicit exclusions: 'Do not use when... prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion first.' It names recommended prerequisite tools and clarifies that this is for direct API follow actions, not exploration or configuration. While it does not compare against alternatives like x_api_request, the guidance is sufficient and actionable.

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