like_songAdd a song to or remove it from the current user's NetEase Cloud Music liked songs by song ID, using a boolean flag to set like status. Modifies account data; confirm before calling.
把歌曲加入（或移出）当前用户的“我喜欢的音乐”。会修改用户账号，调用前请确认。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 歌曲 ID（数字） | |
| like | No | true 喜欢，false 取消喜欢 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly free. The description still adds real value by flagging that the user's account is modified and advising confirmation before calling. It stops short of describing auth requirements or what the response returns.
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, mutation scope first, warning second. Nothing redundant and nothing buried.
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 two-parameter write tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what matters: it mutates the account and warrants confirmation. Minor gaps (response shape, whether un-liking removes the entry entirely) keep it from a 5.
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%; both `id` and `like` are fully documented, including `like`'s true/false meaning. The description's '加入（或移出）' mirrors that toggle but adds no format, range or default detail, so it sits at the baseline.
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 a specific verb pair and resource: add (or remove) a song from the current user's '我喜欢的音乐'. That is unambiguous and readily separable from read-only siblings like get_liked_songs. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to avoid, so not a 5.
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 only guidance is a caution ('会修改用户账号，调用前请确认'), which speaks to confirmation, not to when this tool is the right choice versus get_liked_songs or update_playlist_tracks. Usage is implied by the mutation phrasing rather than stated with conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.