linkedin_follow_company

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the important detail that it can both follow and unfollow based on the 'follow' parameter, which goes slightly beyond the tool name. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral nuances (e.g., auth requirements, error conditions).

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, efficient sentence that is immediately front-loaded with the action and target. No redundant words or filler.

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 and good annotations, the description is sufficient. It covers the core functionality without needing to elaborate on return values or complex behavior. Minor missing context could include what happens if company is not found, but given the tool's simplicity, the completeness is adequate.

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%, with both parameters well-described ('follow' boolean semantics, 'company' accepted formats). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but per baseline for high coverage, a score of 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 or unfollow') and the specific resource ('a company page'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like the generic 'linkedin_follow' or other company-related tools. This is a specific verb+resource pairing.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with similar tools like 'linkedin_follow' or 'linkedin_get_company'. There is no context about when following/unfollowing would be appropriate.

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