Follow an account

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

The only behavioral disclosure is 'Following twice is harmless', which merely restates the idempotentHint annotation. No additional behavioral context (e.g., effects on notifications, follower counts, permission requirements) is provided beyond what annotations already convey.

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 concise sentences: first explains the operation, second adds a helpful idempotency note. No wasted words, clearly front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call semantics. However, it omits any explicit mention of side effects or return behavior, though these are largely implicit for a follow operation.

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%, so both parameters are already well-documented. The description's 'by handle or DID' adds no new information beyond the actor parameter's existing schema description.

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?

Description states the exact verb 'Follow' and resource 'an account', with the specific input format 'by handle or DID'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like unfollow, mute, and block.

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 implies usage context ('Follow an account') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mute or block. The idempotency note offers some guidance but no exclusion criteria.

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