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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It confirms a removal/mutation but says nothing about idempotency when no like exists, permission or auth requirements, error behavior, or reversibility, leaving key traits undisclosed for a state-changing tool.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Brevity is appropriate here, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than tight economy.

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, no output schema, and two fully undocumented required parameters (including an auth token), one sentence is not enough. An agent lacks the auth expectations and edge-case behavior needed to invoke this reliably.

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%, so neither parameter is documented. The description hints that actfile_id targets an actfile, but gives no format or identity details, and says nothing at all about the required auth_token, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ("Retire" / removes) and resource ("un like sur un actfile"), so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings or mention mcp_like_actfile as its inverse, but the name-plus-description pairing makes the counterpart relationship obvious.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative guidance. The agent must infer that this is the undo of mcp_like_actfile and that a like must already exist, with nothing in the text confirming either condition.

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