Update Reactions

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

Description discloses that the tool performs a full replacement ('full new reactions array'), which is a destructive but idempotent action (consistent with idempotentHint=true). Annotations provide safety hints, and description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying the replacement nature.

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?

Description is a single sentence, no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose. Efficiently conveys necessary information without 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?

Given lower complexity (2 params, schema coverage 100%, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It explains the operation and prerequisite action (read via reaction_list). However, it does not discuss the effect on prototype behavior or potential side effects beyond replacement, so it's slightly lacking.

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 both parameters. Description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameter meaning.

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?

Description clearly states action: 'Replace a node's prototype reactions with a full new reactions array'. Verb 'Replace' and resource 'node's prototype reactions' are specific. Distinguishes from sibling reaction_list by advising to read first.

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?

Description provides clear context: read first via reaction_list before calling. Implicitly suggests this tool is for full replacement, not partial updates. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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