follow_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It merely says 'Follow a user' without mentioning required authentication, side effects, result/return behavior, or how duplicate/already-followed IDs are handled. This is behaviorally thin for a write action.

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 that states the action and then provides the essential resolution hint in parentheses. Every word earns its place and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action and input resolution adequately. It could benefit from mentioning auth or side effects, but given the low complexity, the provided text plus schema is enough to guide correct invocation.

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 already fully documents user_id as a numeric rest_id, giving a high schema coverage baseline of 3. The description adds value by instructing the agent to resolve @handles via get_user first, clarifying how to obtain the expected parameter value. It does not introduce additional param details, but the prerequisite insight is meaningful.

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 the resource ('a user'), and specifies the required ID format (numeric id). This distinguishes it from related siblings like unfollow_user and other user-related tools.

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 parenthetical '(resolve a @handle with get_user first)' provides a clear prerequisite and practical guidance for obtaining the numeric user_id. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name reverse-action alternatives, but it gives enough contextual direction for correct usage.

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