mdl_comments_like

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write; the description adds two things the annotations do not: it requires host-configured MyDramaList authentication and it mutates remote data, warranting an explicit user request. No mention of return state or reversibility, but this is valuable beyond the structured fields.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the action leads, then auth requirement, then the mutation caution. Some awkward internal spacing but no wasted sentences.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description covers authentication and mutation risk but leaves the parameters and the like/unlike semantics unexplained. Reasonably complete on behavior, incomplete where the schema is silent.

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 never mentions either parameter. It doesn't explain that comment_id accepts an integer or string form, nor that 'liked' defaults to true and setting it false unlikes. With two undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate.

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 action+resource (liking a comment) compactly, which distinguishes it from siblings like mdl_comments_list, mdl_comments_post, and mdl_comments_delete. It is clear but gives no scope detail and doesn't surface that toggling 'liked' to false performs the inverse.

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?

Provides a real usage constraint ('use only for an explicit user request') and flags the auth prerequisite, but offers no guidance on alternatives or the unlike case, which is implied only by the 'liked' parameter. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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