twitter_muting

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations: muting is non-blocking, results are cursor-paginated, an empty users array means the account mutes nobody rather than a failure, and an authenticated session is required. This gives the agent a strong understanding of the tool's expected behavior and edge cases.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and every subsequent sentence provides essential context: muting semantics, differentiation from blocking, auth requirements, no user_id limitation, and empty-array meaning. There is 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return behavior, and it does so well: full user objects, cursor-paginated results, and empty users array semantics. It also covers auth prerequisites and an important limitation, making the tool sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

The input schema already documents all six parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond referencing cursor pagination and explicitly noting the absence of a user_id parameter, which is useful but not enough to raise the score.

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 lists accounts the authenticated user has muted, returning full user objects with cursor pagination. It distinguishes itself from twitter_blocking by explaining the semantic difference between muting and blocking, making the tool's 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?

It explicitly names twitter_blocking as an alternative and explains why the lists differ. It also covers when not to use the tool by stating there is no user_id argument and X provides no way to read another account's mute list, and it clarifies the authenticated-session requirement.

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