unlike_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the core action ('Remove like') without disclosing side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens if the post is not liked. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains zero waste. 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 simple one-parameter mutation tool, the description is minimally viable. There is no output schema, but the operation is straightforward. However, it lacks context about return values, error conditions, or authentication requirements, which could be important for the agent.

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 coverage is 100%, with post_id fully described as 'ID of the post to unlike'. The description adds no additional parameter context, but since the schema already covers the single parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Remove like from a thread/post' uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('thread/post'), clearly stating the action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like like_post (the inverse operation) and get_post_likes (viewing likes).

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?

Usage is implied by the description: it is used to remove a like from a post. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions, such as if the post is already unliked. The context is simple enough that implied usage is adequate.

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