Add a reaction

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating the call is safe to repeat and won't double-count. It adds context about acting publicly as the account holder and requiring an API key, which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail the response format or any rate limits, but with annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description adds sufficient value.

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 concise, with three short paragraphs that are front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second provides usage guidance, and the third covers idempotency and related tools. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It covers the action, usage constraints, idempotency, and related tools. The only minor gap is not describing the response format, but since there's no output schema, the description could have mentioned it, but it's not critical for a simple mutation tool.

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 the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, but it does clarify the 'type' enum values in the schema itself. The description doesn't add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool records a reaction (like, clap, or bookmark) from the authenticated account on an article. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming remove_reaction and get_reactions, and the verb 'record' plus resource 'reaction' is specific.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: only call when the user has actually asked to react, not on their behalf. It also explains the single-type-per-call behavior and names alternatives (remove_reaction, get_reactions) for related actions.

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