mdl_articles_like

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing that host-configured authentication is required and that the write should only follow an explicit user request. It omits the non-idempotent toggle nature implied by the 'liked' default, so it does not go beyond a 3.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the resource/action before the constraints. Nothing is padded, though the extreme terseness is part of why parameter meaning is missing.

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 small two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the auth requirement and explicit-request caution cover the operational essentials. But with zero parameter documentation and no mention of the like/unlike toggle, an agent can still call it incorrectly, so it is only minimally adequate.

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 0% and the description says nothing about either parameter. Critically, it never explains that 'liked' defaults to true and can be set false to unlike, nor what article_id accepts (integer or slug-like string). For a tool whose core behavior hinges on that boolean, this is a real gap.

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 'Articles: like' format states a specific verb (like) and resource (Articles), which separates it from siblings such as mdl_comments_like, mdl_feeds_like, and mdl_custom_lists_like. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

'Changes data on MyDramaList; use only for an explicit user request' gives a real usage constraint that implies this should not be invoked speculatively. However, it names no alternative (e.g., how to unlike, or which sibling handles other likeable resources) and gives no prerequisites beyond the auth note.

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