Unset Chat Message Reaction

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not restate mutation or idempotency. It adds no extra behavioral details such as what happens when the reaction is not present or whether the operation is silently idempotent. The description aligns with the annotations and adds minimal context beyond the obvious.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the action and the object clearly without redundant phrasing.

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 simple, low-complexity operation with full schema coverage and idempotency already declared in annotations, the description is sufficient. It identifies the operation and the domain (chat), and the absence of an output schema places no additional burden on the description. Slightly more detail about no-op behavior would push it higher, but it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Remove a reaction from a message in a chat conversation' uses a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('reaction from a message'), and the phrase 'chat conversation' distinguishes it from related channel-message tools. It is immediately clear what the tool does and how it differs from set_chat_message_reaction and unset_channel_message_reaction.

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 usage: use this when removing a reaction from a chat message. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like unset_channel_message_reaction for channel contexts. The naming convention provides a hint but no direct guidance.

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