unlike_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and HTTP method but does not disclose important traits such as idempotency (what happens if the like doesn't exist), error handling, authentication requirements, or reversibility. For a mutation operation, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that front-loads the core action and HTTP method. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has an output schema but no annotations, the description should provide additional context about expected outcomes, error scenarios, or object types it applies to (posts, comments, etc.). It currently lacks this, making it incomplete for an agent deciding whether to use it and how to interpret results.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate by explaining the parameter. It does not explain what object_id refers to (e.g., a post ID, comment ID) or how to obtain it. The description only shows the path template, which is not sufficient for an agent to correctly populate the parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove') and a specific resource ('a previously placed like'), and it includes the HTTP method and path (DELETE /{object-id}/likes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling like_object, which adds a like, so an agent can tell the two apart without ambiguity.

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 implies usage as the counterpart to like_object, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide conditions for when to use this tool versus like_object or other like-related tools. It only states what it does, leaving the when-to-use to inference.

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