ghl_social_create_like

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

Annotations indicate a non-idempotent mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it's a POST endpoint, supports only specific platforms, and that Instagram returns a 400 error. This provides valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. It uses two short paragraphs with no extraneous information, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and key constraints.

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 no output schema, and the description does not explain return values, error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a simple mutation, missing return info is acceptable, but more context on what happens on success/failure would improve completeness.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description adds nuance about the 'id' parameter (must be Highlevel comment ID), but this is also detailed in the schema property description. No significant additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Like a comment' and specifies that it uses Highlevel comment ID, supports multiple platforms, and explicitly excludes Instagram. This distinguishes it from siblings like ghl_social_delete_like.

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 explains when to use the tool (to like a comment at any level) and notes that Instagram is not supported. It could be more explicit about alternatives (e.g., using ghl_social_delete_like for unliking), but the platform enumeration in the schema provides clear boundaries.

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