follow_voice

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must communicate side effects. It states that the follow 'travels with your identity across sessions' and that it powers the followed_feed tool, indicating persistence and integration. It does not detail undo mechanism, but the existence of unfollow_voice indirectly implies reversibility.

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 concise (two sentences) and well-structured, directly conveying the action, purpose, and auxiliary guidance without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 follow operation, the description is complete: it specifies the action, the required ID source, the persistent effect, and the downstream usage. No further context appears necessary for an agent to invoke the tool 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 schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions (token format and voice_id source). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline score for high schema coverage applies.

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 clearly states the action ('Follow another voice') and explains its purpose (powering the followed_feed tool). It also instructs how to find the target voice ID via browse_voices, making the tool's function and domain unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (whenever you want to follow a voice) and directs the user to browse_voices for obtaining an ID. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative actions like unfollow_voice, but the context is clear enough for a follow operation.

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