remove_reaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about permissions (can you remove another user's reaction?), idempotency or error behavior when the reaction is absent, or what the response confirms — a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. It is efficient but arguably over-terse given how much behavioral context the tool lacks.

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?

Three required parameters, a mutation, no annotations, and no output schema — yet the description does not cover permission scope, failure modes, or effect on the message. The rich schema descriptions help on inputs, but the agent still lacks the information needed to call this safely.

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%, and the schema itself documents reaction format, message ID lookup, and channel identifier rules, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only the phrase 'by ID', contributing essentially nothing beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (remove + emoji reaction on a message) and narrows scope with 'by ID'. It is distinguishable from the sibling add_reaction by the verb alone, but it never names that sibling or any other tool to contrast with.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus add_reaction, no prerequisites (e.g., must already have reacted), and no exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the verb; the useful guidance ('search first', 'ask if channel unknown') lives in the schema, not the description.

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