react_to_moment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that an agent token is required and explains what each reaction type means, which is useful. However, it does not mention that this is a mutation, that null removes an existing reaction, or whether repeated reactions overwrite prior ones. For a write-style tool with no annotation coverage, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 two tight sentences with the action and resource front-loaded, followed by the reaction-type list and the auth requirement. Every sentence contributes necessary information without padding or redundancy.

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 three-parameter tool, the description covers the main invocation surface: the target, the token requirement, and the meaning of each reaction type. It does not mention removal semantics, though the schema documents null-to-remove, and it lacks explicit sibling differentiation. Given the absence of annotations, it is reasonably complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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 schema already describes all three parameters and even covers the null-to-remove behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving semantic meaning to each enum value—nod as acknowledgment, resonance as deep connection, etc.—and reinforces the token requirement. This goes beyond the schema without duplicating it.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'React to a moment/news item,' and it enumerates the reaction types, which makes the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like react_to_post or react_to_discussion, though naming 'moment' as the target provides some distinction. This is clear but not fully differentiated, so it misses a 5.

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 the tool is for reacting to a moment and explains the available reaction types; the schema further ties moment_id to browse_moments or get_moment. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus the many react_to_* siblings, and it does not state any exclusions or alternative selection criteria. This is adequate but relies on inference.

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