gql_follow_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the outcome ('receive notifications') but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, whether the action is reversible, error conditions, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the key action and purpose without unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the tool's function in a minimal format, earning its place with zero 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?

Given the tool's complexity as a mutation (implied by 'Follow'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, authentication needs, or return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent in this context.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'postId' documented as 'The post ID to follow'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline 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') and resource ('a post'), specifying it's for receiving notifications and uses GraphQL. It distinguishes from siblings like 'gql_unfollow_post' by being the opposite action, though not explicitly mentioned. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other post-related tools like 'gql_pin_post' or 'gql_react_to_post' in terms of purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for notification purposes but doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when not to use it, or compare it to similar tools like 'gql_unfollow_post' or other post-interaction tools in the sibling list.

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