instagram_like_media

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false (write), idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the explicit need for INSTAGRAM_ALLOW_WRITES=true and a caution about burst liking triggering action blocks, plus a return format. This is genuinely helpful behavioral disclosure without contradicting 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 extremely efficient: a one-line purpose plus a requirement notice, a single warning sentence, and a clean Args/Returns breakdown. No filler or repetition, each sentence earns its place. It is well front-loaded with the core action.

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 single-parameter tool with a known output schema and non-destructive write semantics, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, the configuration prerequisite, the risk warning, and the expected return fields. No missing information for correct invocation.

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% for the single parameter 'media' (both schema and description say 'Post URL, shortcode or media id.'). The description repeats this verbatim but adds no extra semantic detail (e.g., examples, format nuances, or edge cases). Since the schema already documents it completely, the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Like a post as the logged-in account.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling actions like unlike_media (which would be the inverse) and other media interactions like commenting or uploading. The purpose is instantly obvious and 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 description states the requirement INSTAGRAM_ALLOW_WRITES=true, which is a prerequisite rather than usage guidance. It does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., unlike_media, comment_media) or any context about typical use cases. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'do not use if...' guidance.

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