telegram-send-reaction

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds key behavioral details: the ability to add to existing reactions via the addToExisting parameter and the ability to remove all reactions by omitting emoji. It does not disclose error handling or rate limits, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 at two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: sending, adding, and removing reactions. It does not mention return values or error states, but these are often implicit for such operations. The description is sufficiently complete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds crucial meaning: it explains that emoji can be a single string or array, and that omitting it removes all reactions. It also clarifies the addToExisting parameter's effect. This goes beyond the schema's built-in descriptions.

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 sends emoji reactions to a message, distinguishing it from siblings like telegram-react-to-story (story reactions) and telegram-get-reactions (read reactions). It also specifies support for multiple reactions and adding to existing ones, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 implies when to use this tool (to send or remove reactions) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like telegram-send-paid-reaction or provide context for when not to use it. The instructions on omitting emoji to remove all reactions offer clear usage direction.

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