gql_react_to_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies the valid reaction types but does not mention whether this is a mutation (likely, as it adds a reaction), permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate reactions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies data.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and lists all valid reactions without unnecessary words. Every part of the description serves a clear purpose, making it highly concise 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?

Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It covers the action and valid reactions but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling) and return values, which are critical for proper agent use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters, including an enum for 'reaction'. The description adds value by listing all valid reaction types explicitly, but it does not provide additional context beyond what the schema already documents, such as format examples for 'postId'.

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 specific action ('React to a post') and resource ('post') with the method ('with an emoji reaction'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'gql_create_post', 'gql_reply_to_post', or 'gql_update_post' by focusing on reactions rather than creation, replies, or updates.

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, such as when to react versus reply or update a post. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing post access) or exclusions, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic action.

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