ariel_follow

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive action, but the description adds no behavioral detail beyond that. It does not mention idempotency, authentication needs, or side effects like creating a follow relationship.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and platform clearly while remaining as concise as possible.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient, but it omits usage guidance and behavioral context such as authentication requirements and expected outcomes. An agent could call it, but may not know when to prefer it or what to expect in edge cases.

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 parameter description already fully documents the actor field as a 'Handle or DID of the user to follow.' The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Follow a user on Bluesky.' It clearly identifies the action, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like ariel_unfollow, ariel_mute, or ariel_block.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ariel_unfollow, ariel_mute, or ariel_block. No prerequisites like authentication are mentioned either.

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