x_like_set

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

The description reveals it is a reversible write, reports the resulting `liked` state, and is disabled under read-only policy. These details go beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and provide useful operational context without contradicting them.

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?

Three compact sentences: purpose, param semantics, and behavior/policy. No filler; code formatting keeps it scannable.

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 two-parameter state-setter with an output schema, the description covers the call semantics, auth context, reversibility, result reporting, and policy restriction. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

Both `post` and `action` are fully described in the schema, including the URL format and enum semantics; the description essentially repeats that information. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no genuinely new parameter insight, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'like or unlike a post as the authenticated user' — which immediately distinguishes it from sibling engagement tools like x_bookmark_set or x_repost_set. It also clarifies scope (the authenticated user's action).

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?

This is clear about the operation's context (authenticated like/unlike) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or list exclusion conditions. Sibling names plus the verb make the intended use obvious, but the description alone doesn't carry that guidance.

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