Approve or reject a follow request

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: rejecting a request is silent and the requester is not told. This is useful, non-obvious context that annotations do not provide. The broader effects of approval are left implicit, but the annotations already establish the mutation profile.

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 only two sentences long, front-loads the core action, and adds one high-value behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place, with no vague filler or unnecessary repetition.

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-decision mutating tool, the description gives an agent enough context to select the tool and choose approve vs reject; the schema fills in the account selector and decision enum. Minor gaps include not describing the expected outcome/return shape and not pointing to get_follow_requests as the listing step.

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 tool description clarifies that decision values map to approve/reject and that 'acct' refers to the requesting account. However, 'acct' remains under-specified regarding expected format, and the description mostly restates the enum semantics rather than adding new parameter-level detail beyond 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 the exact action (approve/reject) and exact resource (pending follow request). It differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_follow_requests, which lists requests rather than acting on them, and follow_account, which initiates a follow rather than resolving a pending one.

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 clearly implies the appropriate context—acting on a pending follow request—but it does not explicitly state when this tool should be preferred over alternatives. It also does not suggest get_follow_requests as the companion tool for enumerating pending requests before calling this one.

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