write_follow

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

Annotations already convey that this is a mutating and destructive write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds concrete behavioral detail by specifying that unfollow removes the follow relationship and that the action can target another person, but it does not discuss permissions, idempotency, or failure behavior.

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 18-word sentence that front-loads the core action and uses a parenthetical to handle the parameter variation. Every clause adds meaning, and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is sufficient: it states the operation, the target, the user scope, and the unfollow branch. Minor omissions like the default behavior when user is omitted and permission requirements are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite only 33% schema description coverage, the description gives meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'a card' identifies id, 'for yourself or another person' maps to user, and 'with unfollow: true, stop following' explains the boolean flag. This compensates for the sparse schema, though id is not explicitly named as a parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Follow'/'stop following'), a resource ('a card'), and a target scope ('for yourself or another person'). It clearly communicates the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools by the unique 'follow' operation, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like write_assign or write_relate, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The only conditional ('unfollow: true') is an internal branch of this tool, not a selection between tools.

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