follow_user

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 does reveal that the tool can follow or unfollow and that it returns the new state, but it fails to explain what determines whether the action is a follow or an unfollow, whether the operation is idempotent, or what permissions are required.

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 very short and front-loaded with the main action. The only minor redundancy is 'Required: username,' which duplicates the schema's required field, but overall there is little wasted text.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not fully explain the tool's behavior. The ambiguous 'or unfollow' behavior and the lack of any indication of prerequisites, errors, or return semantics beyond the state value leave notable gaps for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it only repeats that username is required, which the schema already states. It adds no detail about username format, whether it is a handle or ID, case sensitivity, or how it relates to the user resource.

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 identifies a specific action ('Follow (or unfollow)') on a specific resource ('a user') and adds that it returns the new is_following state. It is distinct from the sibling is_following_user, though it does not explicitly name that alternative. The 'or unfollow' wording introduces some ambiguity about when each behavior occurs, but the core purpose is understandable.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as is_following_user for checking follow state. It only restates that username is required. An agent would have to infer usage context from the tool name and siblings.

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