Follow / unfollow a user

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

Annotations already provide the write/idempotent/destructive profile, so the description only adds the context that the action is performed as the logged-in user and is controlled by the following boolean. It does not disclose rate limits, permissions, or side effects, but the simple semantics make those less critical.

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?

A single sentence with everything front-loaded: action, target, and boolean behavior. There is zero redundancy and no filler, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 toggle action with two documented required parameters, the description plus schema and annotations are sufficient for correct invocation. It does not mention return values, but no output schema exists and the tool's success/failure outcome does not require further explanation for this action.

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 all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description restates the following=true/false mapping that already exists in the schema without adding new meaning. The optional account parameter is also fully described in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb pair (follow/unfollow), names the resource (a user), and clarifies the actor (logged-in user). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling state-setting tools like set_like and set_repost by stating the exact action and its boolean control.

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 makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and implies the correct usage context for following or unfollowing a user. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but no sibling tool performs the same action, so the implied usage is sufficient.

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