twitter_retweet

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

The description adds that it requires write capability, which is consistent with the readOnlyHint=false annotation. It does not disclose further side effects (e.g., visibility, rate limits) but annotations already cover the read-only nature, so the added value is moderate.

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 short sentence that conveys all essential information (action, subject, requirement, and alternative) without ambiguity or unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easily parsed.

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?

For a simple write operation, the description covers the core functionality (retweet), identifies the target via id or url, states the authentication requirement, and points to the reverse operation. Since there is no output schema, return values need not be described. It is complete for its scope.

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 schema descriptions fully cover all 6 parameters (id, url, etc.), and the description redundantly notes 'Provide the tweet id or url,' which is already stated in the schema. Since coverage is 100% and no additional semantic detail is given, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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: 'Retweet a tweet AS your authenticated account.' It specifies the resource (a tweet) and the context (authenticated account), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from other tweet actions.

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 provides a precondition: 'Requires write capability behind your key,' and mentions the reverse operation ('Reverse with twitter_unretweet'). However, it does not explicitly compare to other tweet creation tools (e.g., twitter_create_tweet) or indicate when retweeting is preferred, but the purpose alone makes usage clear.

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