delete_reaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one meaningful trait — 'Preview by default' — signaling that no deletion occurs unless execute is set. However, it omits the destructive consequence when execute=true, any confirmation or idempotency behavior, and auth expectations, leaving the disclosure partial for a deletion tool.

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 sentences totaling roughly ten words, with the core verb-resource pair front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action and path semantics, the second states the default execution mode. No filler 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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core action and the preview default, and the output schema relieves it of explaining return values. It falls short on when-to-use context and on warning about the destructive effect of execute=true, which matters more because no annotations exist to flag risk.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It does add meaning: 'using full endpoint path' clarifies that path takes a complete endpoint rather than an ID, and 'Preview by default' interprets the execute parameter's default false. But it leaves ambiguity about the exact format of the full endpoint path and what execute=true does beyond the obvious implication.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete reaction') and adds the scoping detail 'using full endpoint path', making the tool's purpose clear. 'Preview by default' further clarifies the operating mode. No sibling performs reaction deletion, so explicit sibling differentiation isn't needed, though 'reaction' itself is a bit domain-ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites mentioned (e.g., whether authentication must be established first, especially given the many auth_* siblings). The 'Preview by default' note hints at a workflow but never states when the agent should actually set execute=true or when to prefer a different tool.

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