remove_reactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying that it clears 'every' reaction and returns { ok, nodeId }. The equivalence to set_reactions with an empty array is a useful behavioral detail. However, it doesn't address reversibility or permission requirements, though the destructive annotation mitigates that gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and alternative. No wasted words; every sentence contributes purpose, use case, or return value.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: action, effect, alternative, and return shape. The annotations cover destructive safety. No gaps that would prevent correct invocation.

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% (nodeId is described as 'Node to clear reactions from'). The description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Clear every prototype reaction from a node'. It distinguishes itself from set_reactions by explicitly noting equivalence to an empty array and pointing to set_reactions for replacement. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this to strip interactivity; to replace reactions with new ones use set_reactions.' This clearly states when to use this tool and names the alternative, making the decision process straightforward.

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