set_song_like

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 effectively communicates that the tool mutates like status (like/unlike) and requires explicit confirmation, which is a key safety behavior. It does not detail permissions or error handling, but for a simple mutation tool, the core side effects are disclosed.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and embeds the key requirement (confirmation) without wasting words.

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 tool's simplicity, an output schema exists, and schema coverage is 100%, the description is nearly complete. It covers the essential behavioral context (confirmation, like/unlike) but omits minor details like authentication or rate limits, which are not critical for this straightforward operation.

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 already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic context by linking 'like or unlike' to the liked parameter and 'explicit confirmation' to the confirm parameter, enriching the meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 tool's function: to like or unlike one NetEase song. The verb 'Like or unlike' is specific and the resource 'one NetEase song' is unambiguous, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_user_library or update_playlist_tracks.

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 provides a clear usage condition: the operation should only be performed 'after explicit confirmation'. This conveys when the tool is appropriate to use and implies a prerequisite, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. It gives enough context to avoid misuse.

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