Clear reactions

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description reveals a two-step confirmation flow: the first call is safe and changes nothing, returning a preview and confirm_token. This is critical behavioral information that shapes how an agent should invoke the tool safely.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence contributes necessary information. No wasted words, efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool's complexity centers on the two-step confirmation, which the description adequately explains. No output schema exists, but the description mentions the preview and token. Minor gaps include not specifying the exact preview content or post-execution result, but overall it is sufficient.

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?

While schema coverage is 50%, the description adds crucial meaning for the confirm_token parameter (returned from first call, used to execute) and implies the dry_run behavior (first call changes nothing). It does not explain all parameters, but it clarifies the most complex part of the flow.

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: 'Clear all reactions from a message, or all of one emoji.' This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like remove_reaction and get_reactions, indicating what unique action this tool performs.

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 procedural guidance: the first call is a preview that returns a confirm_token, and repeating with the token executes. This is clear usage context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for when not to use it.

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