delete_all_message_reactions

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: a 10,000-reaction cap, the admin permission requirement, and restriction to groups/supergroups. It omits whether the operation is reversible and what happens when the filter parameter is omitted.

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?

One dense sentence with the scope limit, target, chat-type restriction, version, and permission requirement front-loaded. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 destructive bulk mutation with no output schema, key facts are missing: irreversibility, the default behavior when the user/chat filter is absent, and mutual exclusivity of the two filter parameters. The admin-right note helps, but an agent could still mis-invoke it and wipe all reactions unintentionally.

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 67%, and the description only loosely maps to parameters via 'added by a given user or chat'. It never clarifies whether user_id and actor_chat_id are mutually exclusive, nor what occurs if neither is supplied, and actor_chat_id has no schema description at all.

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), a specific resource (reactions), and precise scope: up to 10000 recent reactions, filtered by user or chat, in groups/supergroups. This clearly separates it from the single-reaction sibling delete_message_reaction without the agent needing to open either schema.

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?

It states the prerequisite (can_delete_messages admin right) and the chat-type constraint (group or supergroup), which is real usage context. It does not explicitly name delete_message_reaction as the alternative for single-reaction removal or say when not to use the bulk variant, so it falls short of a 5.

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