qzone_unlike

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, but does not mention side effects, whether it is idempotent, what happens if the moment is not currently liked, or any permission/authentication requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is extremely concise, though its brevity comes at the cost of missing important behavioral and parameter context.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this minimal description is not sufficient for confident invocation. Essential context about the parameter roles and expected behavior is missing, so an agent would likely need to infer too much.

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 for explaining the parameters. It does not clarify the meaning of hostuin, fid, or appid beyond the opaque schema, and it adds essentially no value for param understanding.

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 '取消点赞一条说说' clearly states the specific verb (unlike) and the resource (a QZone moment). It is directly distinguishable from the sibling qzone_like, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

The intended use is implied by the verb '取消点赞' — it is used when the agent needs to remove a like from a moment. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, nor does it reference the sibling qzone_like as the alternative for adding a like.

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