like_tweet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without clarifying side effects (e.g., irreversibility, notification effects), rate limits, or authentication requirements. This is insufficient for an action that modifies state.

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, 5-word sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core message, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 1-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter. However, it lacks context such as user authentication requirements, success/error behavior, and differentiation from similar actions like retweet. It is adequate but leaves gaps in completeness.

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% (tweet_id has its own description). The description adds 'by its ID' which largely duplicates the schema's purpose. No additional parameter meaning or formatting details are provided, so it neither detracts nor significantly adds value beyond the schema.

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 'Like a tweet by its ID' uses a specific verb ('like') and resource ('tweet'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like retweet, delete_tweet, or post_tweet. The action and target are 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., retweet or deleting a tweet). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as user authentication, or context about when liking is appropriate.

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