Remove Reaction

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not classified as destructive. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it requires the caller to be the user who originally added the reaction. This is a valuable authorization constraint not present in the schema or annotations.

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 only two sentences: the first states the action, and the second adds a critical permission constraint. Both sentences are useful and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 straightforward removal mutation with four well-documented required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and a key behavioral precondition. It could mention failure cases or response behavior, but the essential context for a correct call is present.

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 100%, so all four required parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action: remove an emoji reaction from a comment, using a specific verb and resource. It is implicitly distinct from sibling tools like add_reaction and get_reactions, but it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 provides a clear precondition: only the user who added the reaction can remove it, which is useful context and an implicit exclusion. However, it does not explicitly guide the agent toward alternatives like fizzy_get_reactions for discovering reaction IDs or fizzy_add_reaction for adding reactions.

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