like_current_app_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states only a single like action is supported, but does not mention side effects (e.g., idempotency, authentication requirements, or if the like can be undone). This is adequate but not thorough.

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 well-structured with a prerequisite, main action, important note, and constraint. It is concise but could be slightly shorter without losing clarity.

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 simple like action with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, the need for confirmation, and the single-action limitation. Minor details like result format are missing but not critical.

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 parameter 'review_id' has a clear schema description. The description reinforces its purpose but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('like'), the resource ('specific review for the currently selected app'), and the prerequisite (app must be selected). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'reply_current_app_review'.

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?

Explicit instructions are given: first identify the review using 'get_current_app_reviews' or showing to the user, then ask for confirmation. Warnings against guessing the review_id are clear, providing strong guidance.

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