Clear reactions

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that the first call is a dry run that changes nothing and returns a preview with a confirm_token, and execution only happens on the second call with the token. This provides behavioral context beyond 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, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the action and explaining the safe two-step workflow. No extraneous information.

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 6 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description explains the essential workflow (preview/confirm) and safety. It could mention the return format or error handling, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 50%, with some parameters (dry_run, confirm_token) missing descriptions. The tool description mentions 'preview' and 'confirm_token' in context but does not explicitly define their parameters. It adds some meaning but not full compensation for the schema gaps.

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 clears all reactions or a specific emoji from a message. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remove_reaction' and 'get_reactions' by specifying the scope.

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 advises that it is safe to call directly, describes the two-step preview/confirm process, and instructs the agent to relay the preview to the user. It implicitly suggests when not to use (e.g., for single reaction removal use 'remove_reaction'), but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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