follow_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a write operation (creating a follow relationship) but doesn't disclose permission requirements, rate limits, idempotency, error conditions, or what happens if the user is already followed. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.

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 at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication requirements, or side effects. The context signals show this is a simple single-parameter tool, but the description fails to provide necessary behavioral context for safe 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% with the single parameter 'user_id' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 user' clearly states the action (follow) and target (user), but it's vague about what 'follow' means in this context and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'check_user_following' or 'unfollow_user'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the social relationship being created.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_user_following' (to verify status) or 'unfollow_user' (to reverse the action). The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), appropriate contexts, or exclusions.

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