remove_reactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (delete reactions) without explaining side effects, whether it fails if no reactions exist, permissions required, or how the path parameter is interpreted. This lack of behavioral context makes it risky for an agent to call confidently.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence—which is appropriate for a simple utility. It front-loads the action and object. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, but as a style it is clear and direct, earning a solid 4.

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 tool with only one parameter and no annotations, the description still falls short. It does not explain the meaning of 'path', nor does it mention what happens if reactions do not exist or how this interacts with set_reactions. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly beyond a guessed call.

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 the description does not explain what 'path' refers to (e.g., the path to a field within a schema). The only parameter is a bare string with no meaning added. The agent has no indication of valid formats, examples, or relationship to other fields.

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 '删除字段的 x-reactions' (delete field's x-reactions) clearly states the verb (delete/remove) and resource (x-reactions on a field). It is specific and understandable. While it doesn't explicitly reference the sibling set_reactions, the verb 'remove' inherently contrasts with 'set', making the purpose distinguishable without extra text.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool, what prerequisites are needed, or how it compares to set_reactions. There is no mention of typical invocation scenarios, edge cases, or alternatives. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name and description.

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