Like Post

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

The annotations (openWorldHint, destructiveHint) already convey that this is a state-changing operation with external side effects. The description adds the behavioral detail that it 'navigates to the post and clicks the Like button,' which explains the mechanism but does not disclose additional side effects like requiring authentication or rate limits. It aligns with the annotations rather than adding substantial transparency beyond them.

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 structured with clear sections and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are useful but the Returns section duplicates the output schema, and the ctx parameter adds minor bloat since it's not in the schema. Overall it is concise and readable.

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 simple action like liking a post, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, the URL format, and the return type. However, it does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., login/session) or caveats, and it lacks comparison to similar tools. With the annotations and output schema present, it is reasonably complete but not exemplary.

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?

The input schema only lists post_url without any description, so the description's example URL format ('https://www.instagram.com/p/ABC123/') provides essential clarity. The mention of a ctx parameter that is not in the schema introduces slight confusion, but the post_url semantics are well-covered.

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 states the tool's function: 'Like a post' and elaborates with 'Navigates to the post and clicks the Like button.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like unlike_post.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as unlike_post, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. However, the context implies it is for liking a specific post by URL, which gives some usage guidance. It lacks a clear 'when to use' vs 'when not to use' recommendation.

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