discord_reactions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond delegation: it doesn't say that `clear`/`clear_emoji` remove all reactions, whether permissions like Manage Messages are required, or what limits apply. For a destructive multi-action tool, this is a significant gap.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the resource and action list. It is efficient, though the second sentence is pure delegation and the action list duplicates the enum.

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?

With 6 parameters, nested objects, an enum, destructive annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. The explicit pointer to `discord_help` makes it workable, but the definition is not self-contained and omits behavioral details an agent needs before invoking destructive actions.

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 high (83%), so the schema carries most parameter meaning and baseline 3 is appropriate. The description only adds that `discord_help` should be consulted for required IDs/request fields, which is useful meta-guidance but does not explain any parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 resource ('Discord reactions') and lists the action enum values, which makes the tool identifiable. However, it doesn't state what the actions actually do (e.g., 'add a reaction to a message', 'clear all reactions'), so it largely restates the schema enum rather than defining purpose in its own words.

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 explicitly routes the agent to `discord_help` with `group="reactions"` and the action for IDs, fields, limits and examples, which is practical guidance. But it gives no guidance on when to choose one action over another (e.g., remove_own vs remove_user) or any prerequisites/alternatives within the reactions domain.

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