unlike_post

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true) and non-idempotent (idempotentHint: false). The description adds useful context: 'permanently removes the like and cannot be undone', the authentication requirement, and rate limiting. While valuable, the description largely restates the destructive nature, making the incremental value moderate.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three short sentences. The first sentence immediately states the core action, followed by a warning about permanence, and then complementary usage info. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, destructive), the description covers all essential aspects: the action, the method (deleting by AT-URI), irreversibility, authentication requirements, alternative tool, and rate limiting. An output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return values. This is fully complete for its context.

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 provides a detailed description of the 'likeUri' parameter, including its format and source. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, the baseline 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 clearly states the action: 'Remove a like from a post' by deleting a record. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'like_post', which is the inverse operation. This provides a specific verb and resource with clear differentiation.

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 provides explicit guidance: it states the tool is for removing a like, mentions the alternative 'like_post' for adding, and specifies prerequisites ('Requires authentication (app password)') and constraints ('Subject to per-tool rate limiting'). This covers when and how to use it effectively.

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