React to a post (staged)

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

The description discloses critical behavioral details beyond the annotations: it does not actually react, returns a preview and confirmation_token, and reactions are public/attributed. This adds significant context about the two-step process and social consequences, with no contradiction to the annotation flags.

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, front-loaded with the essential staged behavior, followed by the public/approval context. No wasted words; every clause adds value.

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 tool with no output schema, the description compensates by mentioning the preview and confirmation_token. It also places the tool in the broader approval flow. Minor gap: it does not explicitly link to confirm_action or explain how the token is used, but the sibling list and existing context make this inferable.

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 parameters (post_url, reaction, require_confirmation) are already documented. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Stage' and explicitly states it does NOT react yet, clearly distinguishing it from an actual mutation. It also contextualizes the tool within the approval workflow by mentioning the confirmation token and the same approval step as comments, differentiating it from immediate-action tools like post_comment.

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 clearly implies this tool is for staged reactions requiring subsequent confirmation, and it notes the public/attributed nature as a caution. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., confirm_action) or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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