follow_user

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 user' implies a mutation (creating a follow relationship), but it doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 ('Follow a user')—a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations), 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context, making it insufficient for an AI agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description doesn't mention the 'user_id' parameter at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher; the description implies a user target but doesn't add details like format or constraints.

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 verb ('follow') and resource ('a user'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'follow_list' or 'unfollow_user', nor does it specify what 'follow' means in this context (e.g., social media following vs. tracking). It's adequate but vague about scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), exclusions (e.g., cannot follow oneself), or compare to siblings like 'unfollow_user' or 'get_user_following'. Without such context, usage is implied but not clarified.

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