Remove a repost

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose a key behavioral nuance (requiring the repost record URI, not the post URI) and implies a delete/undo action. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, idempotency, or failure behavior, which would enhance transparency for a mutation tool.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds essential clarification without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the core purpose and the only parameter's meaning. It lacks edge-case details like error handling or authentication prerequisites, but for a straightforward 'undo' action, it is reasonably complete. A slightly higher score would require explicit behavioral guarantees or failure semantics.

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 schema only provides the parameter name repostUri and type string, with 0% coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining that the value must be the AT-URI of the repost record itself, returned as viewer.repost, and explicitly warns against using the original post's URI. This is exactly the semantic information needed to use the tool correctly.

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 opens with 'Undo a repost,' which clearly states the action (undo/remove) and the resource (a repost). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bluesky_repost, which creates a repost. The title 'Remove a repost' reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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 gives clear context: use this to undo a repost. It also provides crucial usage guidance that the repostUri must be the AT-URI of the repost record itself, not the original post's URI, and explains where to find it (viewer.repost). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient for this simple operation.

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