like_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authorization is required, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the like is idempotent, increments a count, can be undone), failure modes, or what the response contains.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes a useful authorization note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 simple one-parameter mutation tool, the description plus schema provides the basic essentials: what to like and that authorization is needed. However, it lacks behavioral details such as idempotency, error handling, or expected return values, and there is no output schema to compensate. It is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 fully describes the only parameter 'article_id' with its type and description. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 '点赞文章' clearly states the action (like) and resource (article), and the parenthetical '需要授权' adds a key condition. It is specific enough to be understood, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'like_pin' beyond the article/pin distinction implied by the names.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like like_pin or collect_article. The only context is '需要授权' (authorization required), which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline. There is no mention of scenarios or exclusions.

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