react_to_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the basic behavior (reacting and removing) but lacks details on potential side effects, permissions, or constraints such as emoji supported or handling of conflicting inputs (e.g., both recipient and group_id). For a 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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every word contributes essential information. It is as concise as possible while being clear.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the core functionality well. However, it could mention implications of providing both recipient and group_id, or error scenarios. Without an output schema, return value expectations are implicit. Still, it is nearly complete for this tool.

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 100% description coverage, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds value by clarifying the remove parameter's effect and that the tool works for both DM and group contexts, which relates to the recipient and group_id parameters. This goes beyond the schema defaults.

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 tool reacts to a Signal message with an emoji, specifying it can be in a DM or group. It also notes an additional capability to remove a reaction. This provides a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_message or send_group_message.

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 explains when to use the tool (to react or remove a reaction) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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