nexus_like_comment

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses the rate-limit pool consumed and the exact return shape ('JSON {likeComment: {comment}} or an error string'). Annotations already cover idempotence and non-destructiveness, so the additional rate-limit and response details are valuable without contradiction.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by the rate-limit caveat and return format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 single-parameter action with an output schema and annotations already covering safety traits, the description is complete. It includes the rate-limit distinction, the return format, and the GraphQL variant, leaving no obvious gap for an agent to 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameter semantics with a clear description ('Comment ID to like') and a minimum value constraint. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, but because the schema is complete, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the exact action ('Like a comment') and the API variant ('v2 GraphQL'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from related siblings like nexus_remove_comment_like through the verb 'like' rather than 'remove'.

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 clearly communicates a relevant selection constraint: this uses the v2 GraphQL pool rather than the v1 REST quota. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the action is unambiguous and the rate-limit context helps an agent choose appropriately.

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