follow_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious fact that this only stages a draft and that approve_draft commits it, which is real behavioral value beyond the annotations. It does not mention that repeat calls create additional drafts or what authorization the account needs.

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 zero filler, front-loading the action and appending the hand-off to approve_draft. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the two-phase draft/approve model is disclosed. The remaining gap is parameter ambiguity between 'account' and 'profile', which is left entirely to the schema.

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% and both required parameters ('account', 'profile') are bare strings with no titles beyond their names. The description clarifies that 'profile' is the target X profile but says nothing about what 'account' means (which credential/identity acts) or their expected format (handle vs ID). It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource pair ('prepare a follow draft') scoped to 'one X profile', and explicitly states that approve_draft performs the actual action, which cleanly separates it from that sibling. An agent can distinguish it from approve_draft, unfollow_profile, and reply_to_tweet without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the operative context: this is the preparatory step and approve_draft is the commit step, which tells the agent where this fits in the workflow. It stops short of naming when not to use it (e.g., versus unfollow_profile or a direct follow path), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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