Remove a reaction

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds crucial behavioral details: it specifies that only the named reaction type is removed, other reactions remain intact, nothing else is deleted, and calling with a non-existent reaction is a no-op. This enriches the annotation-provided hints without contradiction.

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 and well-structured, using three clear sentences. It fronts the core action, then elaborates on scope and side effects, and ends with practical guidance. No fluff or repetition.

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 only two parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, this description fully covers the necessary context: it explains the tool's purpose, safety, idempotency, authentication requirement, and a recommended precondition (get_reactions). It is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The schema covers all parameters (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the 'type' parameter is specific to the exact reaction being removed, and that removing one type does not affect others. It also reinforces the purpose of article_id in context, though it doesn't add new syntax or format details.

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's function: withdrawing a specific reaction from an article. It specifies the resource (reaction) and the action (withdraw/remove), and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like add_reaction and get_reactions by focusing on removal semantics.

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 guidance: it notes the need for an API key, advises calling get_reactions first when unsure of current reactions, and highlights the safe-to-repeat nature. This gives the agent clear context on when to use this tool and what prerequisites exist.

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