delete_comments_by_id_like

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

The description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) and adds the specific target: it removes the like, not the comment itself. It does not add side-effect context such as auth requirements or behavior when no like exists, but the annotations already carry much of the safety profile.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action and HTTP endpoint stated immediately. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the entire description is short, scannable, and free of 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 one-parameter destructive operation with annotations and an output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: the resource, HTTP method, and parameter. It lacks explicit alternative routing and deeper side-effect detail, but those are not required for basic 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?

The single required id is described as 'id/slug of the resource,' which adds slug format beyond the schema's bare 'Id' title, and the endpoint path clarifies that the id belongs to the comment. It does not explicitly say 'comment id' in the Args block, leaving some ambiguity, but it is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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 begins with 'Remove like on a comment,' stating a specific verb and resource, and reinforces it with the endpoint 'DELETE /comments/{id}/like'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_comments_by_id_like, delete_comments_by_id, and delete_comments_by_id_reactions_by_reaction_type.

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 intended use case is implied by the action: an agent can infer this tool is for removing a like from a comment. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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