mdl_feeds_like

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

Adds the host-configured authentication requirement and the explicit warning that data on MyDramaList is changed, both of which go beyond the annotation set. The annotations already flag non-readonly and non-idempotent behavior, so this is solid supplementary context, though it says nothing about reversibility or how to undo a like.

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 action, then auth, then the mutation caution. Nothing is padded, though the telegraphic "Feeds: like" header reads more like a label than a sentence.

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, it covers the two most important operational facts (auth needed, data changes). However, with 0% schema coverage it leaves the unliking behavior of the 'liked' parameter and the feed_id identifier unexplained, which is a real gap for correct invocation.

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 adds no parameter meaning at all: it never mentions feed_id, nor that the optional boolean 'liked' (default true) is what allows the operation to toggle/unlike. With two parameters entirely undocumented by both schema and prose, the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific action and resource ("Feeds: like"), which cleanly separates it from the similarly-named siblings mdl_comments_like, mdl_articles_like, and mdl_custom_lists_like. It is terse but unambiguous about what operation is performed.

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?

"use only for an explicit user request" gives a clear condition for invoking the tool, which is meaningful guidance for a mutation. It stops short of naming alternatives or the conditions under which an agent should decline, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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