ariel_like

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already convey: readOnlyHint=false implies a write operation and destructiveHint=false implies it is not destructive. It does not disclose idempotency, what happens if the post is already liked, or any side effects such as notification or feed changes. This does not contradict the annotations, but it also contributes nothing beyond them.

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 three words and contains no filler. For a simple single-parameter mutation tool, this is appropriately sized and the core action is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, the complete schema, and the annotations covering the read/write/destructive profile, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to understand the operation. Some context is missing around prerequisites and alternates, but nothing that prevents a correct invocation.

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 100%, with the uri parameter fully documented as 'AT URI or bsky.app URL of the post to like'. The description 'Like a post' adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Like a post' uses a specific verb and resource, and is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like ariel_unlike, ariel_repost, ariel_reply, and ariel_quote_post. It lacks extra detail about the action's effect, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of authentication requirements, and no explanation of how it relates to ariel_unlike or other engagement tools. The intended context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and one-line description.

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