like_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (like) but does not disclose whether this requires authentication, whether the like is reversible (unlike), whether it navigates away from the feed when opening a URL, or what happens on failure (e.g., already liked). For an action that mutates state with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral detail would be expected, though the core action is clear.

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?

A single efficient sentence that covers both usage modes without wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action. Minor deduction for not elaborating on parameter interplay, but the description is well-sized for its purpose.

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?

The tool has 2 optional parameters with no output schema and no annotations. The description explains the two usage modes but does not address what happens when both parameters are supplied together, the effect on the browser state (navigating to a URL), or failure cases like already-liked posts. Given the sibling set includes login/auth tools, the description could note auth requirements. Generally functional but with notable gaps for a mutation tool.

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 only 50%; the description names the parameters implicitly (nth for feed position, post_url for URL-based likes) but does not add semantic detail beyond the schema. The nth parameter's schema explains it's the 1-based index with default 1, and post_url's format is defined as uri in the schema. The description adds context about which mode each parameter enables, giving some value, but does not explain the interplay (e.g., mutual exclusivity) or edge cases.

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 resource (a post), with two specific contexts: a post visible on the current feed, or a post opened via URL. It distinguishes from sibling tools like comment_on_post, repost, and follow_person, which are different feed actions. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 communicates two distinct usage modes (feed-based and URL-based) which implies when each would be used. However, it does not explicitly mention prerequisites like being logged in (though sibling tools like linkedin_login and linkedin_auth_status suggest auth matters), nor does it explain which mode takes precedence when both nth and post_url are provided. Clear context but no exclusions or alternative-tool guidance.

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