x_api_unlike_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the mutating and high-risk nature: 'Risk: mutating, high-risk' and 'Safety warnings: This mutates X state.' It also details required permissions, expected response shape, common failure conditions, and environment-selection behavior. This goes beyond minimal disclosure and gives the agent a clear picture of side effects and safety requirements.

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 organized with labeled sections, which aids scanning, but it contains redundancy: 'Unlike Post' appears in both the opening and 'Use when', and 'mutating, high-risk' is stated in both the Risk line and the Safety warning. The length is moderate but could be tightened without losing information.

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?

Despite the parameter-semantics weaknesses, the description covers many contextual aspects: expected response shape, required permissions, common failure conditions, recommended prerequisite tools, environment selection, and a (flawed) example. This is fairly complete for a complex tool, though the missing explanation of core id/tweet_id and the incomplete example prevent a perfect score.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does explain environment-selection behavior for scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey, but for id and tweet_id it only says '(path, unknown, required)' which is vague and misleading ('unknown'). The example omits the required tweet_id parameter, further confusing parameter usage. authorizationKey and preferredAuthType are not explained at all. This is insufficient for an 8-parameter tool.

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 'Unlike Post.' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the tool's action. It distinguishes from related sibling tools like x_api_like_post by using the opposite verb, though it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., removing the authenticated user's like from a post). The phrase 'Use when: Unlike Post' is tautological, but the primary purpose is clear.

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 provides some usage guidance: 'Do not use when' covers exploration and suggests preferring x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion, and recommends auth/configuration tools when needed. However, the 'Use when' is just a restatement of the purpose and there is no explicit comparison to alternative action tools like x_api_like_post. This is adequate but not strong.

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