Like a post

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

The annotations already provide idempotentHint, so the idempotency is known. The description adds the specific behavior that a duplicate like returns the existing like instead of creating a second one, which is beyond annotations. It also clarifies the input URI formats, which is useful for actual invocation.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then immediately provides input format and important behavioral nuance. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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 absence of an output schema, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly: what to pass, the idempotency behavior, and a hint about the return (existing like). It does not explain the full return structure, but for a single like action this is sufficient. It might have mentioned the account parameter, but that is already in the schema with 100% coverage.

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 100%, so both 'uri' and 'account' are already described in the schema. The description only repeats the URI format without adding new meaning (e.g., no example usage or edge conditions). Therefore, it adds little beyond the schema, sustaining the baseline score.

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 verb 'like' and the resource 'post', and further specifies the accepted input formats (at:// URI or bsky.app link). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unlike_post, repost, or delete_post, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 gives some usage context by noting that liking twice is harmless and returns the existing like, implying that re-calling is safe. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives (e.g., unlike_post) or state conditions for when to use this tool versus others, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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