bilibili_video_like

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful point that this is a bidirectional toggle (like=1 set, 2 unset) rather than a one-way action, but says nothing about auth requirements or that the toggle is not idempotent in practice.

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?

A single compact sentence: category tag, action pair, then the parameter mapping. Nothing is wasted and the write nature is front-loaded.

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 confirm gate and the --enable-writes server requirement are documented in the schema, and annotations cover destructiveness, so the essential mechanics are available. However, for a state-changing tool with no output schema, the description never states that an authenticated session is required or what happens on failure, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 only 33% (only confirm is documented), so the description must carry weight — and it does, decoding the otherwise opaque enum by stating like=1 means like and 2 means unlike. The aid parameter is left unexplained, but its meaning is conventional for this API family.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (点赞/取消点赞视频) plus a category tag [互动写入] that separates it from the many read-only siblings. It is clearly distinct from bilibili_video_favorite (favoriting) and the comment/watch-later write tools by resource and action, though it does not explicitly call out those neighbours.

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?

Usage is only implied: the [互动写入] tag and the like/unlike phrasing tell an agent this is the mutation counterpart of video info, but there is no statement of prerequisites (login, --enable-writes) or of when to prefer this over bilibili_video_favorite. An agent can infer the context but must guess the conditions.

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