send_like

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key side effect (it changes the recipient's like count) and the schema adds a QQ daily cap, but it omits permission/friend requirements, failure modes, and mutability caveats.

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 clauses, front-loaded with purpose and default, and no wasted wording. Every sentence contributes either the action or the side effect.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and side effect adequately. However, it says nothing about authorization prerequisites or what happens on failure/daily-limit exhaustion, leaving meaningful gaps for a write operation.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the default and the daily limit. The description restates the default (1 time) without adding syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (点赞/like) and resource (好友/friend), plus the default behavior (default 1 time). It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_/set_ tools, which are all reads or settings mutations, so an agent can identify this as the 'like a friend' action.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives (there are none among the siblings). The only contextual hint is the default count and an implied 'usually a friend' requirement, which is not framed as guidance.

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