mesh_follow

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

With no annotations, the description partially compensates by stating the toggling behavior and public nature of follows. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or what happens if the node doesn't exist.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first covers the action and toggle behavior, second provides context about public social signals. No waste.

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 is incomplete for a tool with no output schema and minimal parameter info. It does not define 'node,' explain the parameter, or indicate response behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'handle' with 0% coverage, and the description does not explain what 'handle' represents. It says 'Follow a node' but does not link to the parameter, failing to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 (or unfollow — it toggles) a node on the mesh.' It uses a specific verb (follow/unfollow) and resource (node on mesh), and the mention of 'public social signal' hints at its nature compared to private interactions, though not explicitly distinguishing from siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mesh_subscribe or mesh_delegate. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer.

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