Follow User

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

Annotations already flag destructive/open-world hints, but the description adds valuable behavior: navigates to profile, clicks Follow, and sends a follow request for private accounts. It also discloses the return format (Dict with url, status, optional message), going beyond structured annotations.

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 tight and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then a brief explanation of mechanics, followed by clean Args and Returns sections. No fluff, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations and a clear return description, the description is complete. It covers what happens (including private-account behavior), the parameter, and the return value, satisfying what an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

The only schema parameter 'username' is fully explained with an example (e.g., 'natgeo'). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so well. However, 'ctx' is mentioned as an argument but is not in the schema (additionalProperties false), which could confuse an agent expecting to pass it.

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 starts with a clear action: 'Follow a user or send a follow request for private accounts.' It specifies the resource (user) and the action (follow), and distinguishes it from siblings like unfollow_user and the various get_* profile tools.

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 context is clear: use this to follow a user, with special handling for private accounts (sends a request). It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention similar tools, but the action is unambiguous and the private-account distinction provides helpful conditional guidance.

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