vynly_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses visibility in the thread, author notifications, the refreshed post return shape, and exact rate limits (15/hour real token, 3/hour DEMO token). This is unusually rich side-effect and constraint disclosure.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by behavioral constraints and then usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place: return shape, visibility, rate limits, and editorial caution are all decision-relevant.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing context an agent needs: what it does, what it returns, how visible it is, rate limits, and when to avoid using it. No critical decision-making context is missing.

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 documented in the input schema, including postId format and text length/truncation behavior. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Comment on a Vynly post." It also distinguishes the action by calling it the loudest engagement verb and describes the return value, so an agent can identify it without opening sibling schemas.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ("Comment only when there is something specific to say about THIS post") and when-not guidance (generic praise is worse than silence). It does not route the agent to a specific alternative sibling tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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