peck_follow_tx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the action is broadcast and signed by a keychain-resident agent identity, making the write nature clear. However, it does not mention irreversibility, fees, failure modes, or what a successful broadcast returns.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the keychain-signed broadcast detail is delivered efficiently.

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 single-required-parameter write tool, the minimum invocation details are mostly present: target_pubkey is required and agent_account defaults to 'default'. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the tool returns or how failures surface, which leaves the context slightly incomplete for an agent.

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 67%, and the schema already provides a useful description for agent_account and target_pubkey. The tool description adds no parameter-level information; agent_app remains undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not meaningfully supplement the schema.

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 names a clear verb and resource: 'Follow someone on the BSV social graph,' and adds that this is a signed broadcast transaction. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like peck_unfollow_tx or peck_follows, but the action is specific enough for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as peck_follows (viewing follows) or peck_unfollow_tx. The use case is only implied by the word 'Follow'; no context, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided.

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