peck_like_tx

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: the broadcast is signed by the keychain-resident agent identity, and likes count toward reputation. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what failures look like, or that it is a write/transactional operation beyond the word 'broadcast.'

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: 'Like a post' captures the core purpose immediately, followed by reputation effect and signing detail. Every clause earns its place, with no wasted words.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the signing identity, and the reputation effect. It omits what the response looks like, whether there are failure modes, and whether duplicate likes are handled. These are notable gaps for a broadcast tool, making the description adequate but incomplete.

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 already describes target_txid and agent_account, but agent_app has no description and the tool description adds nothing about parameter semantics. It simply restates the action in words without clarifying agent_app's purpose or compensating for the 67% schema coverage gap. The description provides minimal added 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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Like a post.' It also adds the reputation effect, which helps distinguish from other tx tools like peck_unlike_tx or peck_repost_tx. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you want to like a post and influence reputation. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference alternatives like peck_unlike_tx for reversing a like. Guidance is minimal but not entirely absent.

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