slack_remove_reaction

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the required OAuth scope 'needs reactions:write'. It stops short of saying whether removing a non-existent reaction errors or silently succeeds, which is the one behavior an agent would still want.

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?

One sentence, operation front-loaded, parenthetical metadata trailing. Nothing wasted and nothing that could be reordered for better scanning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the scope requirement is a nice addition. But for a 4-required-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the definition is thin: timestamp format and the self-only restriction deserve explicit statement.

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% and all four parameters are required, yet the description says nothing about any of them. The critical gap is 'ts', whose Slack timestamp format ('1700000000.123456') is non-obvious and undocumented anywhere, and 'name' vs 'channel_id' vs 'workspace' distinctions are left entirely to inference.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove the user's emoji reaction from a message') and names the underlying API method, which pins down the operation precisely. It does not explicitly name slack_add_reaction as the counterpart, but the verb 'remove' makes the direction obvious.

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 phrase 'the user's emoji reaction' usefully implies scope: only the authenticated user's own reaction can be removed, not someone else's. However, there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no mention of what to do if the reaction is absent, and no named alternative such as slack_add_reaction.

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