follow_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Follow a player' implies a mutation (creating a follow relationship), but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or if it triggers notifications. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for safe invocation.

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 ('Follow a player') with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could benefit from more detail. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'follow' entails, the return value, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a social action tool, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use 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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('Username of the player to follow'), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but with 0 parameters needing compensation, the baseline is 4. It doesn't detract from the schema's clarity.

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 'Follow a player' states a clear verb ('Follow') and resource ('a player'), but it's vague about what 'follow' means in this context (e.g., social connection, notification subscription) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'unfollow_user' or 'block_user'. It avoids tautology by not restating the name exactly, but lacks specificity.

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 like 'unfollow_user', 'block_user', or 'get_following'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., authentication), context (e.g., social features), or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the verb 'Follow', but no explicit instructions are given.

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