ariel_unlike

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it will auto-resolve a post URI to the like record rather than requiring the caller to fetch it first. This is valuable operational context.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the input clarification. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant schema repetition.

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 destructive action with full schema coverage and annotations covering the destructive profile, the description provides all needed invocation details: what action, what input, and the two accepted URI forms. No output schema exists, but for this simple mutation the absence is not a critical gap.

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 already documents the uri parameter at 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds the auto-resolution behavior of post URIs, which is a meaningful semantic detail not present in the schema property description.

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?

States the exact action ('Unlike a post') and differentiates from sibling tools like ariel_like and ariel_unrepost by the negative verb and explicit resource. The second sentence further clarifies the accepted input object, so an agent cannot confuse it with other social 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?

The operation is stated directly, so the intended use (removing a like on a post or via like record) is clear. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative ariel_like or state 'use when you want to remove an existing like,' but the context and sibling list make the selection obvious.

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