clear_reactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at bulk/destructive scope with 'all reactions', but says nothing about whether the operation is irreversible, what permission (e.g. Manage Messages) it requires, or how it behaves on a message with no reactions.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, and the action and scope are front-loaded. It is terse to the point of omitting behavioral context, but structurally sound.

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 destructive bulk mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose permissions, irreversibility, and edge-case behavior. None of that is present, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 channelId and messageId are already documented as Discord channel/message IDs. The description adds no format or targeting detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Remove) and resource (reactions) with scope (all, from a message), so an agent knows exactly what it does. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling remove_reaction (which removes one specific reaction), so the boundary relies on inference.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus remove_reaction or add_reaction, no prerequisites, and no mention of required permissions. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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