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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds the reversible-undo semantics, but it largely restates the schema's own parameter note ('Default true; false takes it back') rather than adding new behavioral context such as auth requirements or response shape.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the undo behavior and id source. Slight redundancy with the schema's parameter notes keeps it from a 5.

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 toggle with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action, reversibility, and id source. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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 coverage is 100%: both parameters are documented, including the default-true/false-reverts semantics and the id provenance. The description repeats rather than extends that information, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Likes a comment or reply') and clarifies it targets comments specifically, which separates it from the sibling like_game. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, but the resource naming makes the distinction clear.

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 useful operational context: the undo path ('liked: false takes it back') and the prerequisite for obtaining an id ('Comment ids come from get_comments'). No explicit exclusions or wrong-use cases, but an agent knows enough to call it correctly.

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