unlike_tweet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action and target, but does not mention reversibility, idempotency, error conditions (e.g., if the tweet was not liked), or authentication requirements. This is minimal beyond what the tool name implies.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a simple one-parameter input, the description is still too thin. It does not address what happens on failure, whether the operation is idempotent, or any side effects. An agent would need to infer too much for a complete understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, with only the parameter name 'tweet_id' and type string. The description adds 'by id', clarifying that the parameter identifies the target tweet, but it does not specify format (numeric string, URL, etc.) or constraints. Some added meaning, but limited.

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 your like from a tweet by id' clearly states the action (remove), the resource (your like), and the target (a tweet by id). It distinguishes from siblings like like_tweet (which adds a like) and delete_tweet (which deletes the tweet itself).

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: use this to undo a like. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use this vs alternatives such as like_tweet or delete_tweet. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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