discord_add_reaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the mutation and gives no detail on permissions, idempotency, failure modes, rate limits, or what happens if the message does not exist. This is a minimal disclosure with no extra context.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized and gets straight to the point.

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 tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the context provided is minimal. While an output schema exists, the missing details about emoji format, required permissions, and relationship to sibling tools make the description incomplete for an agent to confidently and correctly invoke the tool.

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%, and the description does not clarify any parameter semantics beyond what the field names already imply. It does identify that an emoji is being added to a message, but channel_id, message_id, and emoji get no meaningful explanation.

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 names the specific action ('Add a reaction emoji') and the target resource ('a message'). It is unambiguous and the verb distinguishes it from the only closely related sibling tool, discord_remove_reaction.

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 about when to use this tool versus send_message, remove_reaction, or other message-related tools. The only implied usage is 'when you want to add a reaction,' which is not enough to direct an agent toward optimal tool selection.

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