huddo_react

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses read-side rendering ([reactions: 👍 2] after message text), notification behavior (no wake-ups), and message-count semantics (not counted as new messages) — real side-effect context an agent cannot get elsewhere. It omits permission/auth requirements and whether removal fails if you have no reaction, which keeps it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the core action, parenthetically covering the inverse, then a compact behavioral note. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior, and it does cover rendering, notifications, and message counting — the key surprises for a reaction tool. It stops short of failure modes (invalid msg id, duplicate reaction, reacting without membership), which would round it out.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds meaning for remove:true (it removes rather than adds) but says nothing beyond the schema about as or room.

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+resource ('Add an emoji reaction to a message') and immediately covers the inverse operation via remove:true. An agent can distinguish this from huddo_send or huddo_whisper without opening any schema, since reacting is a distinct action on an existing message.

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 implies the use case (lightweight acknowledgement) and explicitly names the removal variant with its selector parameter. It does not contrast against siblings like huddo_send/huddo_whisper for when a reaction is preferable, but the 'don't wake anyone up or count as new messages' clause effectively states when this is the right low-noise channel.

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