delete_reaction

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 states the core action but does not mention idempotency, what happens if the bot has no such reaction, permission requirements, rate limits, or whether the action is reversible. These are relevant operational details for an agent invoking a destructive Discord API call.

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?

A single sentence with no redundant words. The verb, object, and scope are front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. However, no annotations and no output schema mean key behavioral context—such as no-op behavior or result semantics—is missing, so the agent must infer expected API behavior.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it essentially restates that the emoji is the reaction to remove. It does not clarify emoji format (e.g., unicode vs. custom emoji ID) or constraints.

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 states a specific verb ('deletes'), a precise resource ('the bot's reaction on a message'), and the context ('in a Discord channel'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like delete_message and add_reaction by scoping to the bot's own 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as add_reaction for adding reactions or delete_message for removing the message itself. The wording implies the bot can only remove its own reaction, but no explicit selection criteria or exclusions are provided.

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