create_comments_by_id_like

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive write, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating 'Like a comment' and the POST route. It does not mention authentication, side effects, whether duplicate likes are ignored, or how the like can be removed.

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 brief and front-loaded: a one-line purpose, the exact endpoint, then a compact args list. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 tool with an output schema and annotations, this is minimally adequate: purpose, endpoint, and id semantics are present, and the body field is delegated to schema discovery. However, it is incomplete as a standalone guide because it lacks selection guidance and does not explain behavioral expectations around liking, so an agent must infer those from the annotations and siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add some value: id is described as 'id/slug of the resource,' and body is described as a request payload with an explicit instruction to consult the matching GET or /schema endpoint for expected fields. This is useful but leaves the actual body contract undefined, requiring the agent to perform further discovery.

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 the specific action 'Like a comment' and backs it with the exact route POST /comments/{id}/like. This clearly identifies the resource (a comment) and the operation (adding a like), and it is distinct from sibling actions like reporting, replying, or removing a like.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as delete_comments_by_id_like, create_comments_by_id_reactions, or the other comment creation tools. The only process guidance is to read a GET or /schema endpoint before supplying the body, which addresses parameter discovery, not tool selection.

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