vynly_follow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses notification side effects, rate limits (20/hour real, 5/hour demo), shared budget between follow and unfollow, anti-abuse behavior (churn cannot re-notify), self-follow rejection, and return values. This is rich behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, notification behavior, rate limits, and return values. Front-loaded with the core action, no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, side effects, limits, constraints, and return values. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that follow/unfollow share a rate-limit budget (affecting how the unfollow param should be used) and that self-follow is rejected (implying handle validity constraints), which goes slightly beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb (follow/unfollow) and resource (a Vynly creator by handle), and distinguishes itself from siblings like vynly_like and vynly_post_spark, which are different interaction types. The opening sentence is precise enough that an agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema.

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 (interact with a creator by handle) but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like vynly_like or vynly_read_feed. There are no when-not conditions or named alternatives, though the sibling set is mostly non-overlapping.

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