Social Like Project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that 'check' only reports (default), and that like/favourite are independent, which clarifies the behavior of combined actions. It does not mention authentication requirements or side effects like rate limits, but the action semantics are well covered.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the full purpose, and the second clarifies the key semantic distinction. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description explains the action semantics and the independence of like/favourite, which is the main complexity. It could mention whether authentication is required or what 'check' returns, but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of 'like' vs 'favourite' and the independence of the two actions, which goes beyond the enum values. It doesn't add syntax details, but the schema is sufficient.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to love and/or favourite a project, remove either, or just check. It explicitly maps 'like' to Scratch's love (heart) and 'favourite' to the star, which disambiguates the action semantics. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like social_get_project_info or social_follow_user.

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 explains the independence of like and favourite, and that 'both' and 'removeboth' operate on each independently. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the action enum and clear semantics make the usage context obvious. It could be improved by noting that this is the tool for social interactions on a project, not for retrieving project info.

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