Social Follow User

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool can mutate follow state or simply check it, and the schema notes that 'check' changes nothing. However, it does not mention authentication/session requirements, rate limits, or what happens when following fails.

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 efficiently covers all core operations in one line and earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the schema covers all parameter semantics, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and no mention of session/auth prerequisites or usage versus sibling tools, there are some gaps for a mutating social 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the action enum thoroughly. The description itself adds no extra parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 specific verbs ('follow', 'unfollow', 'check') tied to a clear resource ('whether the active account follows a user'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like social_get_user_info or social_like_project and tells an agent exactly what operation is available.

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 states what the tool does but does not explicitly say when to choose it over alternatives or mention prerequisites like having an active session. Some usage context is implied by the verb set, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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