Follow a Node (toggle)

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

Annotations are all false (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), which is consistent with a toggle operation. The description transparently discloses the toggle behavior (follow OR unfollow), which is critical non-obvious behavior — an agent calling this twice might expect the same result but would get the opposite. The disclosure that follows are 'public social signal' is also useful transparency. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core toggle behavior immediately. Every word earns its place — the toggle disclosure and the public-signal context are both high-value. Could perhaps add a parameter explanation but it's appropriately concise for a single-parameter tool.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and a clear toggle mechanism, the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral caveat. However, it doesn't specify what happens on failure (e.g., if handle doesn't exist), return value structure, or idempotency implications of the toggle. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but leaves some open questions for the agent.

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% and there is one required parameter (handle) with no description. The description does not explain what 'handle' means, its format, or how it relates to the node being followed. With zero schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the handle parameter, but it doesn't. However, 'handle' on a mesh/social profile is reasonably self-explanatory as a username identifier.

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 verb (Follow/toggle) and resource (a node on the mesh), and adds useful context that follows are public social signals on MeshVibe profiles. It differentiates from siblings like mesh_subscribe and mesh_refer by specifying the toggle behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish why to use this over mesh_subscribe or mesh_refer, though the social-signal framing helps.

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 implies this is a toggle for following/unfollowing with no when/when-not guidance. It doesn't name any alternatives or explain when to choose this tool over mesh_subscribe or mesh_refer. The context of public social signal gives some indication of use case, but no explicit exclusions or alternative tool guidance is provided.

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