关注 / 取关

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false. The description adds two things annotations cannot convey: the default is a non-mutating preview, and the action is reversible. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and what the preview actually returns, so not a 5.

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?

Three short clauses, zero filler, with the action and its default-preview constraint front-loaded. Every sentence carries distinct information (action, gating, reversibility).

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical facts: what it does, that it is preview-only by default, and that it is reversible. The remaining gap is the shape/content of the preview response, which the agent would need to interpret before confirming.

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 each of the 3 params is documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The prose reinforces the confirm gating semantics but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 + resource (follow/unfollow a user), which is distinct from the read-only siblings list_followings/list_followers. However, it never names an alternative or explicitly differentiates itself from the many write siblings (like_video, coin_video, send_message), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives the operative usage rule: the call is a preview by default and only mutates with confirm=true. That tells the agent when the tool actually does something, but there is no guidance on choosing between follow vs unfollow paths beyond the parameter, and no exclusions or alternative tools named.

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