twitter_article_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Irreversible' statement adds value by emphasizing permanence. It also discloses the extra round trip when hints are omitted, and the requirement for write capability. While it doesn't detail the exact response format, it states 'Returns ok/deleted and the id you targeted', which is sufficient given the 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?

The description is a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the core action and then adds necessary nuance. Every sentence earns its place: the draft vs. published distinction, the comparison to unpublish, the irreversibility warning, the fast-path hints, and the auth requirement. No fluff or repetition.

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 complexity (two lifecycle paths, optional hints, auth requirements) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: what happens to drafts vs. published articles, the tweet deletion, the fast-path hints, the auth requirement, and the return value. It's complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the fast-path hints (lifecycle, tweet_id) and their performance implications, and clarifies that auth_token/ct0 must be paired. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, though the schema already covers the essentials.

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 tool deletes an article as the authenticated account, distinguishes between draft (hard-delete) and published (unpublish + delete tweet) behavior, and explicitly contrasts with twitter_article_unpublish. It names the specific resource (article) and the action (delete), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use this tool (to fully remove a published article's public footprint) and when not to (compare twitter_article_unpublish, which leaves the tweet up). It also provides guidance on optional fast-path hints (lifecycle, tweet_id) and when to omit them, plus the requirement for an authenticated session with write capability.

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