delete_message_reaction

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by naming the required can_delete_messages admin right and the group/supergroup scope, but it does not explain whose reaction is removed when user_id is omitted or whether the removal is reversible.

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 front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical API version note and no wasted wording. The Bot API version is minor extra detail but does not obscure the core action.

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 mutation with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the permission requirement and chat scope but leaves important gaps around parameter semantics and alternatives. It is adequate but not complete enough to fully guide correct invocation.

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 only 50%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the optional user_id, actor_chat_id, or message_id parameters. It only implies that a message is targeted, leaving key parameter behavior undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a reaction from a message,' and scopes it to groups or supergroups. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like delete_all_message_reactions or set_message_reaction, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the stated admin-right prerequisite, which helps an agent know when the call is permitted. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of set_message_reaction or delete_all_message_reactions, and no when-not conditions are given.

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