Remove a like

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 clarifies the input requirement but does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, or irreversibility of the action. This leaves a significant gap in behavioral disclosure for a mutation 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?

The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately following with the key parameter nuance. Every word earns its place, and the structure is efficient.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the critical input distinction and enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. It could be seen as complete for the agent's needs, though it omits error scenarios or response details.

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?

The schema provides only the parameter name 'likeUri' with no description. The description compensates well by explicitly stating that it requires the AT-URI of the like record itself, not the post URI, and even tells the agent where to find it (viewer.like on a post view). This is critical, precise semantic guidance.

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 tile and description clearly state the function: 'Remove a like' / 'Undo a like.' The verb is specific, and the resource (like) is unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bluesky_like or bluesky_delete_post.

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?

The usage context is implied by the name and description: use this when you want to undo a like. It gives an important cue about the input (like record URI, not post URI) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions.

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