telegram-send-reaction

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it explicitly states the ability to send multiple reactions, add to existing, and remove all reactions by omitting emoji. It does not disclose rate limits, permission requirements, or side effects like overwriting previous reactions by default.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or filler.

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?

No output schema, so description could have explained return value or status. Given the tool's simplicity and the parameter details, the description is adequate but lacks return format info. Sibling context shows many similar tools, but description doesn't cross-reference them.

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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the 'emoji' parameter's behavior ('Omit to remove all reactions') and hinting at 'addToExisting' usage, but largely reinforces schema content.

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 identifies the action (send emoji reaction), the resource (a message), and key features: multiple reactions, adding to existing, and removing all reactions. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'telegram-send-paid-reaction' (paid) and 'telegram-react-to-story' (stories).

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 implicit guidance by mentioning 'Omit emoji to remove all reactions' and the 'addToExisting' parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'telegram-get-reactions' or 'telegram-send-paid-reaction', or mention prerequisites like requiring message access.

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