twitter_article_unpublish

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

The description details side effects (tweet left in place), requirements (write capability, authenticated session), error behavior (invalid_lifecycle), and return value (updated Draft article). This goes beyond the annotation (destructiveHint) by specifying exactly what is and isn't affected, without contradicting it.

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 succinct and structured: it states the action, the side effect, the alternative, the error condition, the requirement, and the return value in a few clear sentences without 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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers all critical aspects: what it does, side effects, when to use an alternative, error scenarios, authentication needs, and the return object. It is complete enough for an agent to use effectively.

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% with per-parameter descriptions (e.g., id, auth_token), so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It does mention authentication and write capability generally, but does not specifically elaborate on individual parameters, keeping it at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 (revert a PUBLISHED article to Draft) and distinguishes it from the delete alternative (which also removes the tweet). It specifies the resource (article) and the state transition, making it 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?

It explicitly explains when to use this tool versus the alternative (twitter_article_delete) when tweet removal is also desired. It also mentions the error condition if the article is not published, providing clear usage context.

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