discord_delete_all_message_reactions

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not carrying the safety burden alone. It still adds real value beyond them: permanence for all users ('permanently clears the reaction list for everyone'), the required bot permissions (View Channel, Read Message History, Manage Messages), and the approval-before-execution flow. It does not mention failure modes or rate limits, which keeps it below 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its blast radius, then alternatives, then operational prerequisites. Every sentence carries distinct information; no restatement of the tool name or filler.

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 is simple (two required ID params, output schema present), and the description covers scope, destructiveness, alternatives, permissions, and the confirmation step. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to succeed on the first attempt.

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% – both channel_id and message_id are documented in the schema with the same meaning the description implies. The description adds no format, constraint, or edge-case detail beyond that (e.g., what happens on a message with no reactions), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb and resource with explicit scope: 'Delete all reactions across all emojis and users on a single message.' The scope qualifier ('across all emojis and users') immediately separates it from the by_emoji and my_reaction variants without needing the sibling schema.

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?

Names both alternatives explicitly and pairs each with the selecting condition: 'To remove only a single emoji type across users, use discord_delete_all_message_reactions_by_emoji; to remove only the bot's own reaction, use discord_delete_my_message_reaction.' Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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