Remove reaction

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable context by disclosing the permission requirement (Manage Messages) and the default target (bot's own reaction), going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single sentence of 17 words, front-loaded with the action ('Remove a reaction'), and contains no redundant or extraneous information. Every part earns its place.

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 is simple, has annotations covering safety, and the description covers purpose, default behavior, and permissions. It does not explicitly mention what happens if the reaction does not exist or suggest when to use clear_reactions instead, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation make this adequate.

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 descriptions cover 60% of parameters (user, guild, channel), and the description essentially restates the 'user' parameter's default behavior already present in the schema. It does not add new meaning for emoji or message_id, which lack schema descriptions. Since coverage is moderate and the tool is straightforward, the baseline score of 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's purpose with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a reaction'), and includes the default behavior (bot's own) as well as the permission requirement for removing others' reactions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_reactions, clear_reactions, and get_reactions.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: for removing the bot's own reaction by default, and for removing another user's reaction if the bot has Manage Messages permission. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as clear_reactions for bulk removal, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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