Remove a like

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that by explaining the tool resolves your own like from the post's viewer state rather than requiring a like URI, which tells the agent how the call behaves internally.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the action front-loaded and the argument-saving clarification second. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?

For a low-complexity, two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety and idempotency, and no output schema to explain, the description addresses the only non-obvious aspect (which identifier to supply). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that the like identifier is unnecessary, adding marginal meaning over the schema's own uri description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Remove your like from a post") that is unambiguously distinct from sibling like_post and repost/unrepost. The second clause clarifies the operation's mechanism, removing any ambiguity about what record is targeted.

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 undo-a-like context is implied by "Remove your like," and it usefully notes you need only the post, not a like identifier. However, it never names like_post as the inverse operation or states when-not to use it (e.g., if you have not liked the post).

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