qzone_like

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the dual like/unlike behavior and that the unlike parameter exists for backward compatibility, which is meaningful. However, it omits side effects such as idempotency, repeated calls, permission needs, or what happens when unliking an already-unliked post.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence that names the core operation and includes a relevant compatibility caveat. It wastes no words, though it could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Given four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the required parameters, the relationship to the sibling qzone_unlike tool, or the expected behavior of the unlike flag. An agent has limited information to invoke this tool confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only adds context for the unlike parameter. It does not explain the semantics of hostuin, fid, or appid beyond their schema titles. This leaves most parameters underspecified.

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 clearly identifies a specific action — liking or unliking a Qzone post (说说). It states both supported operations and adds a backward-compatibility note about the unlike parameter. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the dedicated sibling qzone_unlike, which weakens sibling distinction.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus qzone_unlike. The phrase '为兼容旧调用保留 unlike 参数' hints that unlike is supported via a legacy parameter, but it never tells an agent when to prefer one tool over the other or whether qzone_unlike is the modern entry point.

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