react_to_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation ('[write]') and a safety gate ('requires confirm:true'), and mentions it returns a structured status. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether reactions can be removed) or authorization requirements.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose. Every sentence adds value—the first states the action, the second explains the gate and return type. No unnecessary 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 with 3 parameters and no output schema. The description mentions the return type ('structured status'), which is helpful, but does not specify the structure or handle edge cases (e.g., invalid post URN, duplicate reactions). It is minimally adequate for a straightforward write endpoint.

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?

The input schema has descriptions for 2 of 3 parameters (67% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The main description adds no further meaning beyond listing the tool's action. The schema already provides the reaction enum and the confirm flag semantics. The description does not compensate for the missing reaction description.

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 'React to a post' which identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'comment_on_post' or 'create_post' by specifying the action. The '[ALPHA, write]' prefix clarifies the state and maturity, adding context without confusion.

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?

The description mentions that the tool is 'Gated: requires confirm:true', which provides a necessary usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it list any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the confirm flag.

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