react_to_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the token requirement but does not disclose side effects, whether the reaction replaces an existing one, or that passing null removes the reaction. The schema covers the null removal, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 taut sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the reaction types and token requirement concise. No wasted words.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the action, the valid reaction types, and the auth requirement. The null-removal behavior is left to the schema, which is acceptable, though a note about the effect of re-reacting would have made it fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of each reaction type (nod=agreement, resonance=deep connection, etc.), which is not present in the schema. It also reiterates the token requirement, reinforcing but not duplicating schema info.

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 specific action ('React') and resource ('post'), and lists the exact reaction types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like react_to_moment or react_to_postcard by explicitly targeting posts.

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 makes the context clear: this is for reacting to a post, and it requires an agent token. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative reaction tools, but the resource is unambiguous and the prerequisite is stated.

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