follow_person

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' implies a state-changing, irreversible action, but the description doesn't disclose what happens (e.g., the person is notified, the action creates a lasting relationship, requires login state). It doesn't mention authentication prerequisites or whether this is reversible via a sibling tool.

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 concise sentence that conveys the essential action and the required context. Zero wasted words. This is appropriately minimal for a straightforward tool.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema) so the description is adequate for the basic action, but it lacks behavioral context: what happens after following, whether it requires an active LinkedIn session, and how it differs from send_connection_request. For a state-changing action with no annotations and no schema param descriptions, more disclosure would be warranted.

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?

The profile parameter exists in the schema but lacks a description. The tool description's phrase 'from their profile page' partially implies that 'profile' refers to the current open profile context. However, with 0% schema coverage, the description should more clearly define what 'profile' means (e.g., an identifier, URL, or the currently active profile). It adds marginal value but doesn't fully clarify the parameter.

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 clearly states the verb ('Follow') and resource ('a person'), and specifies the requirement of being on their profile page. It distinguishes from siblings like follow_company (which targets companies). However, it doesn't clarify the persistent outcome (creates a following relationship) or how it differs from send_connection_request, a nearby sibling.

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 the precondition: you must be on the person's profile page. This is a clear contextual cue. However, it doesn't explain when to choose following over sending a connection request, or note any restrictions (e.g., cannot follow someone you're already connected with). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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