Like a post

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false); the description adds that the like is reversible, requires like.write scope, and should not be performed in bulk. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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 exceptionally concise, with four short fragments and no filler. Every fragment conveys a distinct piece of information, and the endpoint 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?

For a one-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the key operational aspects: endpoint, auth scope, reversibility, and the anti-bulk constraint. It does not describe the response format, but the lack of an output schema and the tool's simplicity make this acceptable.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the post_id parameter at all. The endpoint and title imply that a post is targeted, but no additional semantic value is provided beyond the parameter name and type.

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 a specific verb ('Like') and resource ('a post'), reinforced by the exact endpoint 'POST /2/users/:id/likes'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as x_organic_unlike and x_organic_bookmark.

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 gives clear usage context by noting the action is reversible, requires scope like.write, and explicitly warns 'Do not mass-like.' It does not name an alternative for undoing a like, but the constraints it provides are sufficient for most decisions.

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