nexus_track_user

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond annotations: it discloses the rate-limit pool ('Consumes the v2 GraphQL pool, NOT the v1 REST rate-limit quota') and the exact return shape ('JSON {trackUser: {success}} or an error string'). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The returns block is slightly redundant with the existing output schema, but the 'or an error string' detail earns partial credit and the overall structure is tight with no 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 1-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description covers purpose, quota behavior, and return shape — nearly everything needed to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain: it does not cross-reference nexus_untrack_user as the reversal, nor describe failure behavior for a nonexistent user, but these are small for such a simple tool.

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 100% and the single user_id parameter already has a clear description ('Nexus Mods member ID to track for updates') plus a minimum constraint. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start tracking a user') and clarifies the meaning of tracking with the parenthetical '(get notifications about their new mods)'. This distinguishes it from siblings like nexus_track_mod (tracking a mod) and nexus_untrack_user (the inverse operation) without needing to open either schema.

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 when to use it — when the agent wants user-level update notifications — and the resource type implicitly separates it from nexus_track_mod. However, it never names the natural alternative (nexus_untrack_user) or explicitly states when not to use it, so routing guidance is left to inference rather than stated.

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