Like / unlike a track or playlist

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description adds useful behavioral context by stating the operation acts on the logged-in user's likes and that liked=false removes an existing like. This clarifies the state-changing effect beyond the raw schema.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the action and directly links the boolean values to their effects. There is no redundancy or filler; every word earns its place.

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 straightforward state-changing tool, the description combined with the thorough input schema and annotations gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly: target kind, target format, liked value, and account selection are all covered. The lack of an output schema is not critical for a mutation call.

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 input schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, including the meaning of liked, target forms, bare-id kind requirement, and optional account selection. The description largely restates the liked=true/false semantics rather than adding new parameter meaning, so it stays at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 action ('Like' / 'remove the like'), the exact resources ('a track or playlist'), and the acting scope ('as the logged-in user'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling social-action tools like soundcloud_set_repost and soundcloud_set_follow.

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 makes the usage context clear: it toggles like state for a track or playlist as a logged-in account. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but no sibling tool provides the same like/unlike capability, so the lack of an explicit exclusion is a minor gap.

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