vynly_like

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses the toggle semantics (including the surprising unlike-on-repeat behavior), the notification side effect, quantified rate limits (60/hour real vs 10/hour DEMO), and that over-limit fails loudly with an explanatory error rather than silently. The return contract (refreshed post, check likes.length) is also given.

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?

Front-loaded with the core toggle behavior, then limits, then usage guidance in short paragraphs. Every sentence earns its place, though the three-paragraph layout is slightly longer than strictly necessary for a single-parameter 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it safely and interpret the result: the toggle hazard, the rate cap, the failure mode, and how to read the outcome from the returned post.

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% and the postId description already covers format and where to source the id (feed/flares/search results, trailing segment of the URL). The description adds no additional parameter detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Like (or unlike) a post on Vynly') and immediately clarifies the non-obvious toggle semantics, which is far more specific than the name alone. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like vynly_post_spark or vynly_comment without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('genuinely appreciate work the agent has looked at') and when-not ('Do not sweep the feed liking everything'), tying the exclusion to the rate cap's purpose. This is unusually strong routing guidance.

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