Update Reactions

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint and openWorldHint, which describe safety and side-effect properties. The description adds that the tool replaces the entire array, but does not disclose error handling, permission requirements, or validation behavior. Given annotations, the transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes a key prerequisite. No unnecessary words, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has a complex reactions schema but the description covers the main action and prerequisite. The output schema is indicated as present, so return values are presumably covered. Minor gaps like error conditions exist, but overall it is 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 input schema has 100% description coverage for properties, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema references. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 replaces a node's prototype reactions with a new array, using the verb 'replace' and specifying the resource. It differentiates from the sibling tool reaction_list by instructing to read first, making the purpose distinct.

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 explicitly advises to read current reactions via reaction_list before updating, providing a clear usage pre-condition. It does not specify when not to use the tool or alternative tools, but the context of update vs. read is clear.

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