favorite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key trait: this is a WRITE ACTION requiring explicit user confirmation and confirm=true, which is exactly the safety context an agent needs. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and what happens if confirm is omitted/false (default false is only visible in the schema).

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 tight sentences with the core capability first and the safety gate second. No filler, and the critical constraint is capitalized and front-loaded rather than buried.

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 3-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract (write + confirmation). It would be fully complete with a note on return behavior or failure when confirm is absent, but nothing needed to invoke 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the two meaningful values of 'action' ('create' vs 'destroy') and the required 'confirm=true' semantics, which the bare schema does not. 'status_id' is left unexplained but is self-evident from the purpose.

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+resource pair ('favorite/unfavorite a status') and clarifies that a single tool handles both directions via the action parameter. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'favorites' (a listing tool) and 'post_status'/'delete_status' without opening any schema.

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 a clear gating condition: only call after the user has explicitly confirmed this exact action and content in chat, plus the confirm=true requirement. It does not name alternative siblings (e.g., 'favorites' for reading), but the when-to-use context is explicit and actionable.

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