like_pin

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 mentions that authorization is required, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence with zero wasted words. It directly states the action and the key prerequisite, making it easy to parse and front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the essential context (like pin, auth required) but omits return behavior or error conditions. Given the low complexity, the description is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 describes the only parameter 'pin_id' as '沸点ID' (pin ID), yielding 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter's format or usage, but the schema is already sufficient given the simplicity of a single identifier.

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 '点赞沸点' clearly means 'like pin', a specific verb+resource action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like like_article and collect_article by targeting pins specifically. The added '需要授权' (requires authorization) further clarifies the operation's context.

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 usage context is implied by the tool's name and description: use it to like a specific pin. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, and no mention of alternatives, but for such a direct action the purpose itself strongly implies the appropriate situation.

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