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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic effect without disclosing any additional behavioral traits (e.g., whether it fails silently, if the post must be currently liked, or any authentication requirements beyond the token). This is insufficient for transparency.

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?

One sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary; there is no wasted text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and absence of output schema, the description covers the core functionality. However, it could mention expected behavior (e.g., returns success or error) to be fully complete for a mutation tool.

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 50% (only rider_token has a description in schema). The tool description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides for either parameter. No explanation of postId format or constraints is given.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove your like') and the resource ('a post'), making it obvious what the tool does. It directly contrasts with the sibling tool 'like_post', providing clear differentiation.

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 context is implied (when you want to unlike a post), but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. It is adequate but lacks explicit direction.

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