Like comment or Note

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds useful context beyond that: the action is performed 'as you' (authenticated user identity) and 'the author sees your like in their activity' (a visible side effect). It does not describe the return payload, but the extra behavioral detail is meaningful.

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 opening sentence front-loads the core action cleanly. The second sentence is somewhat redundant, restating 'like or unlike' as 'adds your heart ... or removes it with unlike', but the remainder (ID space, author visibility) earns its place.

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 two-parameter, annotation-covered mutation with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: scope, identity behavior, visibility side effect, and the ID-space caveat. Only the response shape is unaddressed, a minor gap for this tool.

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 both parameters are already documented, including that unlike defaults to false and that comment_id accepts a Note ID. The description reinforces the shared ID space and names extra ID sources (list_notes, search_substack), which adds slight value but is largely duplicative of the schema.

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 names a specific verb pair (like/unlike) and its exact resource (a comment or a Note), and implicitly carves out the boundary with the sibling like_post by restricting scope to comments/Notes rather than posts. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear usage context—use it to add/remove a heart on a Note, Note reply, or a comment under your publication's post—and explains the unlike path for removal. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives such as like_post, so routing between the two like-tools still requires inference.

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