Like post or comment

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

Annotations already flag it as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive open-world mutation, and the description adds real context beyond that: the author gets a leaderboard point, Skool sends them a notification, rapid liking returns rate_limited, and the action is undone with one call. These are exactly the side effects and failure modes an agent needs before mutating state.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, inverse semantics, social side effects, rate limits, and reversibility. The purpose and the liked=false mechanic are front-loaded ahead of the caveats.

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?

Covers the mutation's side effects, its rate-limit failure mode, and reversibility for a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and solid annotation coverage. It does not say what a successful response contains or how an already-liked target behaves, though idempotentHint partially covers the latter.

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%, and the description restates the same facts the schema already carries ('liked false takes the like back', post_id doubling as comment_id) without adding syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (like/unlike) and resource (post or comment), and the 'take the like back' phrasing covers the inverse operation explicitly. It is clearly separable from siblings like follow_post and vote_on_poll.

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?

Gives a clear condition for the inverse path ('liked false takes the like back') and states it 'runs without asking first', so the agent knows no confirmation is needed. It never names alternatives such as follow_post or vote_on_poll, so the routing guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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