unlike_tweet

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, covering the basic safety profile. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the action is only a preparation and requires approve_draft to take effect. It omits idempotency implications and what the resulting draft state looks like, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the critical prerequisite. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the draft/approve workflow is conveyed. The gap is parameter meaning (both params undocumented in schema and description) plus no note on whether repeated calls stack drafts, leaving the agent with unresolved ambiguity.

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% for both required parameters (account, tweet_url) and the description adds nothing about them — notably whether tweet_url is a full URL or an ID, or what "account" refers to. With low coverage the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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?

"Prepare removal of your like from one exact post" gives a specific verb (remove a like) and resource (one exact post), and the word "prepare" correctly signals the two-step draft-based nature. It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like undo_retweet and remove_bookmark, but does not name or contrast them explicitly.

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?

"Always requires approve_draft" is explicit workflow guidance: the agent learns this call alone does not complete the unlike and must be followed by approval. It does not, however, state when-not-to-use or contrast with alternative unlike/undo tools.

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