Like a post

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that this uses a 'real account' and is 'rate-limited', providing behavioral context beyond the structured annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentences plus a warning emoji. Every element is useful: the verb, the identifier patterns, and the behavioral caveat. No wasted words, front-loaded with the action.

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 like operation with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: how to identify the post and the key behavioral trait (rate-limited). The annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness. A small gap is that the return value is not mentioned, but this is minor.

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% so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the OR relationship between url and handle+code, guiding the agent to provide either combination. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 uses the verb 'Like' and specifies the resource 'a Threads post', clearly identifying the action. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like unlike_thread by naming the positive action. The alternative identifier patterns (url or handle+code) add specificity.

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 tells how to specify the post (url or handle+code), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like unlike_thread or repost_thread. The usage context is implied by the action name rather than spelled out.

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