bilibili_user_follow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description reinforces the write nature with [互动写入] but does not add real behavioral context such as whether unfollow removes server-side state, whether repeated calls fail, or any rate limits.

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 compact clause with the write tag and the act mapping front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably terse given the undocumented parameters, but structurally it is clean.

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 destructive, non-idempotent write with a required confirm flag and a server-side --enable-writes prerequisite (documented only in the schema), the description does not summarize those gating conditions or the reversibility of the change. It is minimally adequate because annotations and the confirm param description cover part of the burden.

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 only 25% — act, fid and re_src are undocumented in the schema. The description compensates for the most ambiguous one by mapping act=1/2 to follow/unfollow, and 'UP主' implies what fid targets, but re_src remains entirely unexplained in both places.

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 a specific verb pair (关注/取消关注) applied to a specific resource (UP主), and the [互动写入] tag flags it as an interactive write. It is clearly distinguishable from read-oriented siblings such as bilibili_user_followings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

It maps act=1 to follow and act=2 to unfollow, which is a minimal usage cue, but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over nearby siblings (e.g., bilibili_user_relation_stats or bilibili_user_followings) or on prerequisites such as login state.

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