xhs_like_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavior: '智能检测当前状态，已处于目标状态时自动跳过' (intelligently detects current state, skips if already in target state), indicating idempotency. However, it does not describe error conditions, return values, or permission requirements beyond the needed token, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and follows with the key behavioral nuance and prerequisites. Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a simple mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description adequately covers what it does, the idempotency behavior, and required inputs. However, it omits return value/feedback and error handling scenarios (e.g., invalid token, non-existent feed), which are important for an agent to fully understand the outcome. Given the tool's simplicity, it is acceptable but not complete.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description only repeats the requirement for feedId and xsecToken, adding no extra meaning to the 'unlike' parameter or the relationship between parameters. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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: '为笔记点赞或取消点赞' (like or unlike a note), identifying both the verb and the resource. It also adds a distinctive behavior of auto-detecting current state and skipping if already in the target state. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'xhs_favorite_feed', so it's not a perfect 5.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('需要笔记 ID 与 xsecToken' – requires note ID and xsecToken), which implies basic usage context. It does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use this for liking, use xhs_favorite_feed for favoriting'. This is adequate but lacks clear alternative guidance.

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