reactions_delete_user

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

Beyond the annotations (which are already informative), the description discloses the permission requirement ('Requires Manage Messages'), the mod-action nature, and the return payload shape. This adds meaningful context about auth needs and expected output, which annotations alone do not provide.

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 bold section headings, front-loads the purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It is compact yet covers purpose, exclusions, returns, and permissions without any wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple, the output schema exists, and the description is complete for decision-making and invocation. It includes sibling differentiation, permission requirements, and return shape, leaving no critical gaps.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, but it does reinforce the 'specific user' aspect in the purpose. 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 clearly states the action: 'Remove a specific user's reaction from a message (mod action).' It identifies the specific verb (remove), resource (reaction), and scope (specific user), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by clarifying what it does not do (bot's own reaction, clearing all users).

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 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections with named alternatives (reactions_delete_own, reactions_delete_all) and the exact conditions for choosing each. This gives an agent unambiguous guidance on tool selection.

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