douyin_digg

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

No functional annotations are supplied beyond a title, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral context by flagging the anti-spam risk ('别刷'), which signals an account-safety constraint that is not encoded anywhere in the schema. It still omits whether repeated calls are idempotent, whether authentication is mandatory, and what the call returns.

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?

It is a single short sentence with the action front-loaded and the caveat in a trailing parenthetical, which is efficient and easy to scan. The colloquial '别刷' is informal but does convey a rule worth keeping, so nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action and the abuse caveat. It leaves out what happens on failure (e.g., already-liked state) and whether a return value such as a like count is provided, which an agent calling a state-changing interaction tool would benefit from knowing.

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 awemeId and the unlike boolean are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter usage or defaults, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a concrete verb pair (点赞 / 取消点赞) and a concrete resource (某条作品), so the agent knows exactly what action is performed. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with sibling interaction tools such as douyin_comment_publish, but the like/unlike action is 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 parenthetical '（养号互动用，别刷）' tells the agent the intended scenario (account nurturing) and adds a caution against bulk abuse, which implicitly rules out mass-liking. However, it never states prerequisites (login required), nor does it point to any alternative tool for read-only inspection of a video.

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