Like or unlike a game

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'heart' metaphor and implies a state toggle, but does not disclose additional behavior like authentication needs, effects on like counts, or error cases. It is sufficient but not richer than the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simple setter with robust annotations, the description covers the core purpose. However, it does not explain post-invocation behavior (e.g., return value, errors, or effects on the game's like count), and there is no output schema to compensate. Some context 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?

The schema gives a thorough description for 'game' but none for 'liked'. The description's 'toggle the heart' implies that 'liked' controls the heart state, but it does not explicitly state that true means like and false means unlike. This adds some meaning but leaves ambiguity.

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 ('toggle the heart') and the target resource ('a game'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like like_review (which targets reviews) and add_favorite_game (which manages favorites). The wording is specific and unambiguous.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or the relationship to sibling tools such as like_review or add_favorite_game.

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