follow_artists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the auth scope. It does not mention idempotency, partial-failure behavior for invalid IDs, rate limits, or side effects beyond following, which an agent would need to fully anticipate the outcome of a mutating call.

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 filler. The core action, target resource, ID limits, and auth requirement are all conveyed efficiently.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic call contract, but it omits behavior an agent would need for a mutation: how errors are handled for invalid IDs, whether following is idempotent, and what the response looks like depending on response_format. This is adequate but not 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 100%, so the schema already documents the ids array and response_format enum. The description adds little beyond restating the ID count bounds already present in the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Follow'), the resource ('one or more artists'), and the accepted ID count range (1–50). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like unfollow_artists, check_following_artists, and get_followed_artists by naming the exact mutation performed.

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 gives clear context: call this tool to follow artists, and it notes the required OAuth scope ('Requires user-follow-modify'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when this tool applies.

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