teams_remove_reaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that only the caller's own reaction is affected, but says nothing about behavior when the reaction is absent (idempotency), auth requirements, or whether other reactions are untouched.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope-defining qualifier 'your own' appears early and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

This is a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema and adequate annotations, so the bar is low. Still, the absence of any parameter detail — especially the emoji encoding expected to match teams_list_reaction_emojis — leaves a correctness gap an agent must guess around.

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 0% and the description mentions none of the three required parameters. Critically, it does not specify the expected emoji string format (unicode vs. shortcode) or how messageId/conversationId must be sourced, even though the names alone are only partially self-explanatory.

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 (emoji reaction on a message), which cleanly separates it from teams_add_reaction and teams_list_reaction_emojis without naming them. The phrase 'your own' also communicates a meaningful scope limit, though no sibling is referenced by name.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the undo counterpart to teams_add_reaction. The 'your own' qualifier hints that reactions by other users cannot be removed, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite (e.g., login, valid message) guidance.

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