twitter_create_tweet

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: the tweet is published publicly, is not silently reversible, and requires an authenticated session with write capability. Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds critical context about reversibility and visibility.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences covering purpose, usage, behavioral notes, and return value. Every sentence adds value without waste. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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 has 9 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, usage for replies/quotes, public nature, irreversibility, auth requirement, and return output (tweet_id, url). It covers all essential aspects for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that reply_to and quote determine the tweet's relationship. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters like media_ids or ct0 beyond what the schema already describes. This added context for key parameters justifies a 4.

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's purpose: 'Post a new tweet AS your authenticated account.' It specifies the action (post), resource (tweet), and context (as your account). It distinguishes from the sibling 'twitter_delete_tweet' by mentioning deletion for removal.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: to post a new tweet. It explains how to use reply_to for replies and quote for quote-tweets. It notes that publishing is public and irreversible without deleting, and explicitly names the sibling tool for removal. It also mentions 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.