apex_create_follow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a follow with notifications, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions required, whether the follow is reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 core action and purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (a creation operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'monitoring follow' entails, how notifications work, or what happens after creation. For a tool that likely involves persistent monitoring and notifications, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 all parameters (topics, frequency, channels) with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how topics relate to regulatory updates or the implications of frequency choices. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create a monitoring follow') and the purpose ('with notifications for regulatory updates'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like apex_create_topic or apex_list_topics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from apex_generate_brief or apex_search, which might also involve monitoring or regulatory content, so it's not fully sibling-distinct.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing existing topics from apex_list_topics, or when to choose this over apex_generate_brief for regulatory updates. Without any context on usage scenarios or exclusions, the agent lacks direction.

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