telegram_set_message_reaction

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds that it can both set and remove reactions, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects (e.g., notifications to users). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys both setting and removing reactions. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description doesn't need to cover safety or return values. However, with 0% schema coverage and 4 nested parameters, the description should do more to explain parameter usage and context. It's minimally adequate but leaves gaps in understanding how to invoke the tool effectively.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions '메시지' (message) and '이모지 리스트' (emoji list), hinting at chat_id/message_id and reaction parameters, but doesn't explain all four parameters or their semantics in detail. Since there's only 1 top-level parameter (params object), the description adds minimal value, aligning with the baseline for low coverage.

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's purpose as '메시지에 이모지 리액션을 설정하거나 제거합니다' (Sets or removes emoji reactions on a message), which specifies the verb (set/remove) and resource (emoji reactions on messages). It distinguishes from sibling tools like telegram_send_message or telegram_edit_message by focusing on reactions rather than message content. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other reaction-related tools (none exist in the sibling list), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing message IDs), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools. While the sibling list includes no direct reaction alternatives, guidelines for when reactions are appropriate versus other interactions (e.g., editing messages) are absent.

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