like_paper

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that the action is INSERT-only and idempotent, never un-likes, and that it tunes the For You feed. No mention of error behavior or response, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 extremely concise at three sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with behavioral details and differentiation. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, differentiation, and auth requirements. It lacks details on return values or error cases, but given the simplicity, it is acceptably complete.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, stating simply 'Like a paper' and relying on the schema for format.

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 clearly states the action (like) and the resource (paper), and explains the effect as a calibration signal for the For You feed. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'save_paper', making the purpose 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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use (to express taste for ranking) and distinguishes from save_paper for bookmarking. It mentions idempotency and the requirement of SF_API_KEY. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., there is no way to unlike), leaving a slight gap.

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