remove_reaction

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real constraint — only the caller's own reactions can be removed — but says nothing about permissions, idempotency, or what happens when the reaction does not exist.

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?

A single eight-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action and free of filler. It is efficient, though arguably terse given the undisclosed failure and permission behavior.

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 two-parameter operation with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It leaves open edge-case behavior (missing reaction, whether thread messages are supported), which keeps it from being 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or semantic detail beyond what post_id and emoji_name already convey, leaving it at the baseline with no extra value.

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 gives a specific verb ('Remove') plus the resource ('emoji reaction from a message') and adds a scope qualifier ('your own'). It is clearly distinct from add_reaction and get_reactions, though it never names those siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus add_reaction or get_reactions, and no prerequisites or conditions are stated. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the word 'Remove'.

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