remove_reactions

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

The description discloses the destructive nature via the annotation destructiveHint=true, and adds behavioral details (omitting indices removes all, zero-based indices). It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value, no repetition or fluff.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers both usage modes and references a related tool. Could mention that the operation is destructive, but the annotation already covers that.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaningful context: it explains the meaning of omitting indices vs providing an array, and advises using get_reactions. This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Remove prototype reactions from a node'. It specifies two modes of operation (remove all vs specific indices) and references the sibling tool get_reactions to guide the user.

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 explicitly tells the user to use get_reactions first to obtain current indices, and explains how to use the indices parameter. However, it does not provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the context is clear for this operation.

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