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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known from structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no permanence, no cascade behavior for referencing data, no confirmation or permission requirements — so it repeats what the name and annotations already convey.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with the verb first and the endpoint second; nothing is padded. The endpoint is somewhat redundant with the tool name but still compact.

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 one-parameter delete whose destructive nature is already declared by annotations, this is minimally adequate. It leaves out what exactly is removed, whether anything referencing the reaction is affected, and no output information exists, so it stops at the minimum viable level.

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 0% for the single 'id' parameter, and the description only mirrors the path template ({id}) without explaining which identifier is expected or its format. For a 0%-coverage parameter, more compensation was needed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete code reaction') and pins it to the endpoint DELETE /api/v2/strategy/reaction/code/{id}. This is enough to separate it from the llm-reaction and folder siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from delete_strategy_reaction_code_id_store.

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?

There is no guidance on when to delete a code reaction versus using the sibling tools (id_store, folder_id, llm variants) or on prerequisites such as ownership. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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