Follow an account

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description only needs to add context beyond them. It does exactly that by disclosing that locked accounts trigger a follow request instead of a direct follow, which is a meaningful behavioral edge case not otherwise expressed in the schema.

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 first sentence states the core action plainly, and the second front-loads an important edge case. Minor redundancy with the title exists, but nothing wasteful.

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 mutating tool, the description plus the rich schema parameter descriptions and annotations cover the main behavior and the key locked-account edge case. There is no output schema and no return-value detail, but that is a minor gap for a follow action and does not prevent correct invocation.

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%, and the parameter descriptions already explain acct formats, notify semantics, account selection, and the reblogs default. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Follow an account') and adds an important conditional: locked accounts receive a follow request instead. The noun 'account' clearly separates it from sibling tools like follow_hashtag and from account-modifying tools such as block_account or mute_account.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusion criteria, or mention of alternative tools such as follow_hashtag or answer_follow_request. The locked-account note describes behavior, not selection context, so the agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and title.

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