anilist-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the login requirement, which is useful, but doesn't explain whether this is a toggle (follow/unfollow based on current state), what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or permission needs beyond login. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 and front-loaded, with only one sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key prerequisite. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., toggle behavior, error handling), return values, and broader context needed for safe and effective use, despite the concise structure.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'userID' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., format, constraints, or examples), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 action ('Follow or unfollow') and target resource ('a user by their ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'get_user_profile' or 'search_user' that also involve user operations, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 some usage context with '[Requires Login]', indicating a prerequisite, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user_profile' for viewing or 'search_user' for finding users. It implies usage for following/unfollowing but lacks explicit guidance on scenarios or exclusions.

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