peck_unlike_tx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions that the broadcast is signed by the keychain-resident agent identity, which adds context, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., if the like is permanently removed, any reversibility) or any prerequisites beyond keychain identity. It also doesn't clarify how errors are handled if the like doesn't exist.

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 three sentences, each adding distinct information. Front-loaded with the main action, then details the process. No fluff, but could be more structured with headings. It is concise and to the point.

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?

The tool is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema. The description explains the process and signing, but omits details like what happens if the target like doesn't exist, any side effects on other data, or return format. It's adequate but missing some situational context.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what's in the schema. The 'target_txid' is described in schema, and 'agent_account' is explained in schema's description. Since coverage is moderate, the description should compensate, but it doesn't provide additional context for parameters.

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 ('Undo a previous like') and the specific resource (target post). It mentions building a MAP unlike tx and removing the like from reactions, which is specific and distinguishes it from peck_like_tx and other transaction tools.

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 usage for undoing a like, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative methods. It does not mention when not to use it or refer to sibling tools like peck_unfollow_tx for similar undo operations.

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