like_object

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It correctly identifies this as a POST mutation performed as the current identity, but it does not mention idempotency, required permissions, or behavior on duplicate likes. This is minimal but acceptable for a straightforward like operation.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the action and target, and it includes an endpoint hint without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity of the tool—one required parameter and an output schema—the description covers the core invocation details well. It lacks discussion of side effects or idempotency, but those are less critical for this minimal like action.

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 only defines object_id as a string with no description, so the description adds value by indicating the ID refers to a post, comment, or object. However, it does not specify ID format or the full range of acceptable object types, leaving some ambiguity for edge cases.

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 verb and resource: 'Like a post/comment/object' as the current identity, and even includes the endpoint pattern 'POST /{object-id}/likes'. This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like unlike_object and get_post_likes.

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 conveys the action and actor ('as current identity') and implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as unlike_object or clarify when not to use it. An agent can infer the intended use, but the guidance is not fully explicit.

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