unlike_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Unlike') which implies a mutation/write operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the message wasn't previously liked. The description is minimal beyond stating the basic action.

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 perfectly concise with zero wasted words. It states the purpose in one clear sentence, then provides parameter explanations in a structured format. Every sentence earns its place and the information is front-loaded effectively.

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 mutation tool with 2 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but lacks important context. It explains what the tool does and what parameters mean, but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, side effects, or return values that would be important for a write operation.

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 description provides clear parameter documentation in the Args section, explaining what each parameter represents ('The group ID or direct message conversation ID', 'The ID of the message to unlike'). With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates by adding essential semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Unlike') and the resource ('a previously liked message'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'like_message' by specifying the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly mention the sibling relationship.

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 context by stating 'previously liked message', suggesting this tool should be used after a message has been liked. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites beyond having a liked message.

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