delete_comment_reaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' clearly indicates a destructive mutation, the description doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether this action is reversible, error conditions (e.g., trying to delete a non-existent reaction), or what happens on success. The 'Qiita Team only' note is helpful context but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 perfectly concise at just one sentence that contains no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete an emoji reaction from a comment') and includes the important contextual restriction ('Qiita Team only') efficiently. Every element 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?

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and some context but lacks important behavioral details. The 'Qiita Team only' restriction adds value, but without information about permissions, error handling, or success responses, the description feels incomplete for a tool that permanently modifies data.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters clearly documented. The description doesn't add any additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema (comment_id and reaction_name). According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 action ('Delete') and target resource ('emoji reaction from a comment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other deletion tools like delete_comment or delete_item_reaction by specifying it's for comment reactions. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the 'Qiita Team only' restriction as part of the core purpose, which slightly reduces specificity.

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 some contextual guidance with the 'Qiita Team only' restriction, which helps determine when this tool is applicable. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like delete_item_reaction or provide any guidance about prerequisites (e.g., needing to have added the reaction first). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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