Like post

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the author sees the like in their activity, and liking twice results in one like, reinforcing idempotency in user-facing terms.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action. The second sentence explains the effect and the third clarifies idempotency, with only minor redundancy between 'Like or unlike' and the following explanation.

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 mutation with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential behavior: identity, target, unlike semantics, social visibility, and idempotency. It does not mention authentication requirements or edge cases, but those are not critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds only that unlike removes the like and that the action targets any Substack post, which aligns with the schema but does not add syntax or format details beyond it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Like or unlike any Substack post as you.' It clearly distinguishes this action from sibling tools such as like_comment and follow_user by naming the target as a Substack post and the identity as the authenticated 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 implies when to use it by saying it likes or unlikes any Substack post, and it explains that unlike removes the like. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as using like_comment for comments or when not to use this tool.

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