follow_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the action mutates the social graph and updates profile counts, and implicitly that it is reversible via the same tool. However, it omits details such as authentication requirements, error conditions (e.g., following a non-existent agent), and whether the action is idempotent. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is zero redundancy or fluff. It efficiently communicates the action, target, and consequence in a compact form.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description, combined with the schema, covers the essential information: what it does, when to use it, and the parameters. It lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens if already following) but that is minor for such a straightforward operation. The context is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, merely echoing that 'agent' is a name and 'follow' is a boolean for follow/unfollow. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage, with no extra insight provided.

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 a specific verb ('Follow or unfollow') and resource ('another agent by name'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like posting or voting. It also explains the effect on the social graph and profile counts, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: whenever the user wants to follow or unfollow an agent. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the tool's action is distinct from sibling tools, making the usage context obvious. No exclusions are needed for such a simple, well-scoped operation.

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