reactions_delete_own

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

Annotations already cover idempotent and non-destructive aspects. The description additionally clarifies the scope (only the bot's own reaction) and includes return shape, adding context beyond the schema. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Well-structured with clear labels (Purpose, When to use, When NOT to use, Returns). Every section is informative and compact – no filler or redundancy.

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 reaction-removal tool with full schemas, annotations, and output shape stated, the description fully covers purpose, usage boundaries, return values, and safe behavior alternatives. Complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, with each parameter fully described (emoji format, channel/message ID patterns). The description adds no extra parameter detail, which is acceptable since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states 'Remove the bot's own reaction from a message' – a specific verb and resource combined with scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools by limiting to the bot's own reaction and by referencing alternatives in the 'When NOT to use' section.

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 clear when-to-use scenarios (roll back erroneous reaction, cleanup after poll) and explicit when-not-to-use with named alternative tools (reactions_delete_user, reactions_delete_all). This leaves no ambiguity for agent selection.

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