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

Adds real context beyond annotations: the action is performed under the caller's identity ('as you'), and the author is notified via their activity feed — a side effect not captured by openWorldHint. This helps explain the non-readOnly/non-idempotent flags, though it doesn't spell out reversibility or that the like is publicly visible.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and the toggle, followed by the ID-space caveat and the side effect. No filler, though the 'Adds your heart...' clause partly restates the opening verb.

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 tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the essentials: identity under which the like occurs, cross-entity ID sharing, and the visible side effect. Only explicit guidance on when to prefer like_post over this tool 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%, so baseline is 3; the description adds value by clarifying that comments and Notes share one ID space and naming list_notes and search_substack as valid ID sources, which the schema's comment_id text only partly covers.

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 pair (like/unlike) and precise resources (a comment, a Note, or a Note reply) with actor scope ('as you'). It is clearly separable from sibling like_post, which the phrasing implicitly leaves for posts rather than comments/Notes.

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?

Explains the toggle mechanism ('or removes it with unlike'), so an agent knows this one tool handles both directions rather than needing a separate unlike tool. It also gives context for where valid IDs come from. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with like_post or stating when not to use it.

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