reactions_delete_all

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing irreversibility ('DESTRUCTIVE - IRREVERSIBLE'), explaining the exact scope of deletion (all vs. per-emoji), and describing the return payload shape. This adds valuable context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Purpose, When to use, When NOT to use, Examples, Returns). Every sentence adds value, and the use of bold headers and examples makes it scannable and useful without unnecessary fluff.

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 destructive nature and the complexity of the scope behavior, the description is fully complete: it explains when to use/not use, provides examples, states the return format, and clarifies edge cases. The output schema exists, so return details are covered sufficiently.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds crucial semantics for the 'emoji' parameter, explaining the conditional behavior when provided vs. omitted. It also gives concrete examples for both invocation modes, which is more helpful than the schema alone.

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 action: 'Clear reactions on a message', with precise scope differentiation between clearing all reactions and clearing a specific emoji across all users. It also explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool reactions_delete_user, making it easy to select the correct tool.

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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, including a direct reference to an alternative tool (reactions_delete_user) for removing a single user's reaction. This gives unambiguous guidance for appropriate invocation.

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