mdl_users_like_person

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered; the description's 'Changes data on MyDramaList' largely repeats that. The genuinely additive piece is the host-configured authentication requirement, which the annotations cannot express. It omits that the liked=false case performs an unlike/toggle, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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, the auth prerequisite, and the safety gate appear in order with no filler. The leading 'Users:' fragment is slightly awkward but costs little.

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 two-parameter, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth and the explicit-request gate but leaves the unlike path and any success/failure behavior unexplained. Adequate as a safety notice, incomplete as an operating guide.

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 there are 2 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it says nothing about person_id or the 'liked' boolean. In particular, it never explains that liked=false reverses the action, leaving an agent to infer the inverse behavior from the schema default alone.

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 phrase 'Users: like person' is essentially a restatement of the tool name (mdl_users_like_person) rather than a full sentence describing the action, so it sits between tautology and clarity. The resource (person) does implicitly separate it from sibling 'like' tools such as mdl_comments_like and mdl_custom_lists_like, but no scope or effect is spelled out beyond that.

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 real usage condition for a mutation tool, which is more than most siblings offer. It does not name an alternative or explain what changes if the user wants to undo the like, but the gating guidance is clear.

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