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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: repeated likes do not re-notify, the first like triggers an interaction notification visible to the author as the caller's identity, and unliking affects only the caller. These are social side effects an agent cannot infer from idempotentHint/destructiveHint alone.

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?

Front-loads the login requirement and the primary action, then layers the toggle semantics and social consequences compactly. Dense but every clause carries information; only the idempotency restatement mildly duplicates the annotation.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers authentication, consent, idempotency, notification behavior, and the scope of unliking — everything needed to invoke it responsibly.

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% and both parameters are already documented, including the default for 'like'. The description restates the default and notes that unlike only affects the caller, which is minor added meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('给一条消息圈点赞') and explicitly covers the inverse operation ('like=false 取消赞'), so the agent knows this single tool handles both toggling directions. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like comment_moment or get_moment.

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 concrete usage conditions: login required, and user consent must be obtained before liking because the author is notified. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g. comment_moment vs. like), but the when-to-use condition and the consent prerequisite are explicit.

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