slack_stdio_remove_reaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool removes a reaction the user added, implying it only works on reactions the user added, and it notes the emoji format. However, it does not disclose what happens if the reaction doesn't exist, whether it fails silently, or whether it requires specific permissions. For a simple mutation tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, the API method is given for reference, and the emoji formatting note is placed at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the API method, the catalog limitation, and the emoji format. It doesn't describe error behavior or permissions, but those are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The description is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the emoji formatting rule ('without colons') and clarifies that channel_id can be a DM or IM id, which is already in the schema. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema, so 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 states a specific verb ('remove'), a specific resource ('emoji reaction the user added'), and the underlying API method (reactions.remove). It also distinguishes itself from the hosted catalog, which only has add/get, making it clear this is the removal counterpart. This is a precise, unambiguous definition that an agent can act on without opening the schema.

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 explicitly notes that the hosted catalog only has add/get, implying this tool is the way to remove reactions. It also gives a formatting guideline for the emoji parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_message or delete_message, though those are clearly different operations. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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