remove-comment-reaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. It mentions the platform ('Liveblocks') but doesn't explain the reaction system's behavior or constraints.

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 perfectly concise at 6 words, front-loading the core action and target. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is optimal for a basic tool description.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'reaction', how reactions work in Liveblocks, what happens after removal, error conditions, or return values. The description provides only the minimal action statement without necessary operational context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters (including a nested object with 3 sub-parameters), the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. It doesn't explain what 'roomId', 'threadId', 'commentId', or the 'data' object represent, nor does it clarify the meaning of 'emoji', 'userId', or 'removedAt' fields. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 reaction') and target resource ('from a Liveblocks comment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'add-comment-reaction' by specifying removal rather than addition. However, it doesn't specify what type of reaction (emoji) or provide additional context about the reaction system.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing reaction to remove), doesn't differentiate from related tools like 'edit-comment' or 'delete-comment', and offers no context about appropriate scenarios for reaction removal versus other comment modifications.

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