like_post

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

Annotations are absent, so the description is the sole source of behavioral transparency. 'Like a post' merely restates the action and does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, whether it changes the like count, whether it requires authentication, or what happens if the post is already liked. This is a major gap for a state-changing write 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 a single short sentence with no filler or repetition of schema details, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though arguably too thin, but the conciseness itself is good.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should carry more context. It omits authentication expectations, idempotency, return behavior, and any interaction with the existing like state, so an agent cannot predict the outcome of repeated calls or failures. Only the schema's required post_id provides invocation detail.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it does not mention post_id at all. That said, the sole parameter's name and type (post_id integer) make its role inferable from the description's 'post' noun, so the missing documentation is less harmful than for a multi-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 names the verb ('Like') and the target ('a post') unambiguously, and the action is clearly different from siblings like unlike_post and bookmark_post. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not explain the effect of a like or differentiate it from other engagement actions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus unlike_post or bookmark_post. There is also no mention of prerequisites, such as authentication requirements or whether the post must already exist. The only contextual clue is the tool's name, which is not enough to route an agent confidently.

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