follow_user_v1_users__clerk_id__follow_put

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it's a PUT with OAuth, idempotent, and returns current count. This adds transparency, though side effects or error conditions are not covered.

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 short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the HTTP method and auth, then the action and key behavioral trait (idempotency).

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the action, auth, and idempotency. However, it does not specify what 'current count' refers to or mention any prerequisites.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on the clerk_id parameter beyond mentioning its name. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of explanation.

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 'Follow a user' and mentions the specific resource (clerk_id). It also notes idempotency, distinguishing it from sibling tools like unfollow_user or get_follow_status.

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 usage (to follow a user) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_following or unfollow_user. Idempotency is mentioned but not contextualized.

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