like-note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation action ('like'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, idempotency, or what happens on success/failure (e.g., does it increment a like count, return confirmation, or have side effects?). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient phrase ('記事にスキをする') that directly states the action. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, though it could be more specific to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool (liking a note) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error handling, return values, or how it interacts with sibling tools (e.g., 'unlike-note', 'get-likes'), making it insufficient for reliable agent use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'noteId' clearly documented in the schema as '記事ID' (note ID). The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond this, but with 0 parameters needing extra explanation and high schema coverage, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as no compensation is required.

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 '記事にスキをする' (like a note) states a verb ('like') and resource ('note'), but it's vague about what 'like' means in this context (e.g., adding a like/reaction, bookmarking, or favoriting). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'unlike-note' or 'get-likes', leaving ambiguity in scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing authentication or a valid note ID), when to prefer 'like-note' over 'get-likes' for checking likes, or how it relates to 'unlike-note'. This leaves the agent without context for selection.

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