twitter_delete_tweet

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explicitly stating the tweet is 'permanently removed' (irreversible), reinforcing destructiveHint. It also discloses that only self-authored tweets can be deleted and that write capability is required, which are not present in the annotations. This adds critical context for safe invocation.

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 three concise sentences, each adding value: the action, the irreversible consequence, and the author restriction. No fluff or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and gets straight to the point.

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?

With a simple deletion tool and rich schema annotations, the description covers essential behavioral aspects: irreversibility, author scope, and authentication requirement. It does not explain error cases or post-delete behavior, but given the lack of output schema and the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete. Missing details like proxy usage are already in the schema.

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 each parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The description only reiterates that id or url must be provided ('Provide the tweet id or url'), which matches the schema's mutual-exclusivity note. It adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Delete a tweet AS your authenticated account.' It specifies the verb (delete) and resource (tweet), and distinguishes from siblings like twitter_unfavorite_tweet or twitter_unretweet by focusing on permanent deletion. The irreversibility and author restriction add precision.

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 usage context: you can only delete tweets your own account authored, and it requires write capability. It instructs to provide the tweet id or URL. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools (e.g., unfavorite or unbookmark), though the destructive nature makes it distinct.

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