ads_mastodon_follow

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the confirmation gate, the no-implicit-follow guarantee, and the read:follows / write:follows permission requirements. It omits what happens if the account is already followed (idempotency) and any rate-limit behavior, which keeps it from 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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the action and its hard precondition come first, the safety constraint about search results second. No sentence is filler.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential risks: consent gating, no implicit side effects, and required scopes. It could additionally state the duplicate-follow outcome, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 80%, so the schema already documents notify, reblogs, confirm, and target_account_id. The description reinforces the confirm=true semantics but adds no format or constraint detail for the remaining fields, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Follow one selected Mastodon account') plus the gating condition 'confirm=true'. It implicitly separates itself from the discovery tools by noting search results never trigger follows, though it never names a sibling directly.

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?

Clear context for use: an account must already be selected, and an explicit confirm=true is mandatory. It also adds a 'when-not' clause (search results never trigger follows) and names the required OAuth scopes, leaving only the exact upstream discovery tool implicit in the schema.

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