Set comment reactions

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the overriding behavior and emoji codepoint format, but does not mention error handling, idempotency, or potential side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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, each conveying essential information without fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the behavior is explained directly.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the action, parameter format, and override behavior. Minor gap: no mention of return value or confirmation, but not critical.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining case-insensitivity and the no 'U+' prefix rule for emoji codepoints, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 sets the authenticated user's reactions on a comment, explicitly noting it overrides existing reactions. The verb 'Set' and resource 'reactions on a comment' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like plaky_update_item_comment.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: to set reactions, with explicit notes on overriding and how to remove all reactions via empty array. It does not explicitly exclude use cases but the context is sufficient.

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