qzone_like

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits that are not in any structured field: a 24h per-post idempotency limit and a frequency cap. It omits auth/login requirements, what error surfaces when the 24h window is hit, and what a successful call returns, which matters for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 the required inputs, then the limits. No filler and no repetition of what the schema already states.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the essentials (what it does, where to get the IDs, rate and dedupe limits) are present. Auth requirements and failure/return semantics are absent, which leaves it adequate rather than complete.

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 50%: tid is documented but target_uin has no schema description at all. The description partially compensates by naming both parameters and pointing to qzone_see_posts as their source, but it never explains what target_uin identifies (the post owner's UIN vs. the viewer), leaving the undocumented parameter only half-clarified.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource (给某条说说点赞 - like a specific Qzone post), which is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling write tools (qzone_comment, qzone_publish). It also names qzone_see_posts as the source of the required identifiers, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening the schema.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite call (先 qzone_see_posts 拿) and a hard constraint that effectively defines a when-not case: the same post cannot be liked again within 24 hours. No guidance on what to do if the like fails or on permission requirements, but the practical usage path is clear.

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