Follow an account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds a plain-language idempotency note ('Following twice is harmless') that aligns with the annotation, but otherwise doesn't disclose additional behavioral context like permissions or side effects.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The core action and input constraint come first, and the idempotency note is a useful second sentence without bloat.

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 two-parameter action with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description provides adequate context: what the tool does, how the target is specified, and that repeated calls are harmless. No output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both `actor` and `account` documented clearly. The description only reiterates what the schema already says about `actor`, so it adds no meaningful semantic value beyond the structured parameter definitions.

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 states a specific verb ('Follow') and resource ('an account'), and specifies the addressing forms ('by handle or DID'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like unfollow and other account actions.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The schema's account parameter hints at calling list_accounts, but that addresses account selection, not tool selection.

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