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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description corroborates idempotency ('retries do not toggle it') while adding genuinely new context: required scope write:social, the self-like rejection rule, and that admission/consent/Autopilot limits apply. The 'limits' clause is left vague, which keeps this short of a 5.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and boolean semantics, then escalating to permission, validation, and policy constraints. No filler; each clause carries a distinct fact.

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 with full annotations and no output schema, this covers auth scope, validation failure, idempotency, and ambient policy limits. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation, though the unspecified 'limits' leave a small ambiguity about failure modes.

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 0% for the two parameters. The description compensates well for 'liked' (give the desired boolean, not a toggle), but says nothing about message_id beyond what the UUID format already implies. Partial compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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 ('Set or remove'), a specific resource ('your public like'), and a scope ('on a message'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling toggles set_follow and set_repost, which act on different resources.

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?

Usage is implied rather than spelled out: you call it to like or unlike a message. The note 'Set liked to the desired boolean; retries do not toggle it' is operational guidance on idempotency but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use against any alternative path is given.

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