Add or remove an emoji reaction on a specific Telegram message after the user confirms the target chat, message, and emoji.
Add or remove your emoji reaction on one Telegram message. This changes external state: use only after the user explicitly confirms the chat, message, emoji, and whether it should be added or removed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| emoji | Yes | ||
| remove | No | ||
| chat_id | Yes | ||
| message_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that the operation 'changes external state', which goes beyond the raw annotations and explains why confirmation is required. The description also implies a user-driven safety rule. It does not mention failure behavior or response format, but for a simple state-changing tool the disclosure is meaningful.
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 concise sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the safety constraint immediately after. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant restating of schema details.
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 simple four-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the confirmation prerequisite. However, it leaves the optional `remove` parameter's default behavior and the expected return value unspecified, so it is adequate but not fully complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by mapping 'chat, message, emoji, and whether it should be added or removed' to the parameters and clarifying the `remove` boolean's purpose. It does not specify what happens when `remove` is omitted or provide additional format-level meaning beyond the schema.
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 action ('Add or remove your emoji reaction') on a specific resource ('one Telegram message'), which is clearly distinct from all sibling tools. The second sentence also reinforces the exact entities involved: chat, message, emoji, and action type.
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?
Explicitly provides a precondition: use only after the user confirms the chat, message, emoji, and whether to add or remove the reaction. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the confirmation requirement gives clear context for safe invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.