Discord MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Remove' implies a destructive/mutative operation, the description doesn't specify permission requirements, rate limits, whether removal is reversible, what happens if the reaction doesn't exist, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after removal (success/failure indicators), permission requirements, error conditions, or how this operation fits within Discord's reaction ecosystem. The description alone doesn't provide enough context for safe, effective use of this tool.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't compensate with any extra semantic context about parameter relationships or usage patterns.

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 action ('Remove') and target ('a reaction from a message'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'discord_add_reaction' by specifying removal rather than addition. However, it doesn't differentiate from more distant siblings like 'discord_delete_message' or 'discord_edit_message' which also modify messages.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing appropriate permissions), when removal is appropriate versus other message modifications, or how it differs from related tools like 'discord_delete_message' (which removes the entire message rather than just a reaction).

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