follow_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that undo=True reverses the action; it says nothing about authentication requirements, idempotency on already-followed users, error behavior for invalid keys, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the inverse operation appended. Nothing is wasted, though the ambiguous '/spartacus/' token occupies space without earning its place.

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?

A two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more from the description than this provides: the required key's meaning/format is unexplained and no behavioral context (auth, idempotency, errors) is given. The undo hint covers only part of what an agent needs.

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 0% and neither parameter has a description, so the description must compensate. It does explain undo ('undo=True unfollows'), which is valuable, but the required 'key' parameter is never defined — the stray "'/spartacus/'" string is the only hint and it is never tied to 'key'. Partial compensation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Follow a user'), and the clause 'undo=True unfollows' makes the bidirectional nature clear, distinguishing it from the other social-action siblings like favorite_show and repost_show. The parenthetical "('/spartacus/')" is cryptic — it reads like a literal URL/username fragment with no explanation, which slightly muddies rather than clarifies.

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 usage by explaining that the same tool handles the inverse operation via undo=True, which is genuinely useful routing information. But it gives no guidance on when to use this vs. any alternative, prerequisites, or what happens on repeat calls. Adequate but thin.

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