socials_x_quote_tweet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the need to always confirm with the user before posting, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other relevant behaviors such as the action being public, rate limits, potential errors, or reversibility. This adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

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 highly concise, using two sentences to convey the action, key parameters, and a critical safety instruction. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides value.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers the action, the source of the post ID, the content parameter, and a critical user-confirmation requirement. It does not mention the return value or media parameter, but these are covered by the schema or are non-essential for invocation. Slightly more detail about consequences would push it to a 5.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra value by specifying that post_id comes from socials_get_feed and that content is the quote text. This slight clarification does not significantly exceed the baseline set by the schema, so a 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 clearly states the action 'Quote tweet a post on X' with a specific verb and resource. It also identifies the key parameters (post_id and content) and differentiates itself from sibling tools like socials_create_post and socials_engage_post by explicitly focusing on quote tweeting.

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 clear context: it indicates the tool is for quote tweeting and references socials_get_feed as the source for post_id, establishing a dependency. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the instruction to confirm with the user adds a practical usage rule. This is clear guidance, though not fully explicit about when not to use it.

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