Like Post

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds minimal extra context by clarifying that the action is performed on behalf of the authenticated user and that the post is referenced by ID. It does not disclose side effects, error cases, or rate limits, so it provides only marginal added value beyond the annotations.

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, concise sentence of 12 words that immediately states the action ('Like a post') and the key qualifier ('by its ID'). It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant phrasing, earning its place with every word.

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 one-parameter mutation with well-populated annotations, the description covers the essential information: what to do, what input to provide, and who is affected (the authenticated user). However, it does not mention return behavior or edge cases (e.g., already liked posts), and since there is no output schema, a bit more context about the response could be beneficial. Still, the tool is simple enough that the description is largely sufficient.

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 schema already provides full coverage of the single parameter tweet_id with the description 'The ID of the post'. The description's phrase 'by its ID' reinforces this but adds no additional detail about the format, source, or constraints of the ID, so the schema carries the documentation burden and the description offers no further semantic enrichment.

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 ('Like a post'), the resource (a post identified by its ID), and the acting principal ('on behalf of the authenticated user'). This is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling tool x_unlike_post, which performs the opposite action.

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. It merely states what it does without mentioning scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no reference to the sibling x_unlike_post for the opposite action, leaving the agent without comparative usage direction.

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