follow_tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Follow a tag' implies a mutation action (following), but it does not specify effects (e.g., notifications, updates), permissions required, rate limits, or error conditions. The description lacks any behavioral details, leaving the agent to guess about the tool's operation and consequences.

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 extremely concise with 'Follow a tag', consisting of three words that directly state the action. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient for quick parsing. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool's mutation nature (implied by 'follow'), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects, usage context, or return values, leaving critical gaps for the agent to operate effectively. For a tool that likely modifies user state, this minimal description is inadequate.

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%, with the single parameter 'tag_id' documented as 'The tag ID to follow'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it does not explain parameter format, sourcing, or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics without description enhancement.

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 'Follow a tag' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without elaboration. It specifies the verb ('follow') and resource ('tag'), but provides no details about what 'follow' entails or distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'unfollow_tag' or 'follow_user'. This minimal statement fails to clarify the tool's purpose beyond its name.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), conditions for use, or comparisons to related tools such as 'unfollow_tag', 'follow_user', or 'list_user_following_tags'. Without any context, the agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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