twitter_unbookmark_tweet

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

With destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false in annotations, the description correctly reinforces the mutating nature by using 'Remove' and adds the need for 'write capability behind your key.' It explains the authentication context without contradicting annotations, though it could also mention the requirement to be authenticated as the account owner.

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 only two sentences long, front-loads the core action, and wastes no words. Every clause earns its place, making it highly scannable for an AI agent.

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 mutating tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what is removed, whose bookmarks are affected, what inputs are needed, and what permission is required. It is slightly light on post-conditions (e.g., what a successful removal returns), but this is a minor gap.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for every parameter, including the mutual exclusivity of id/url and header mappings. The description adds minimal new parameter information beyond restating 'Provide the tweet id or url,' so a baseline score is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a tweet from YOUR authenticated account's bookmarks'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like twitter_bookmark_tweet or twitter_bookmarks by focusing on removal from the user's own account.

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 tells the agent to 'Provide the tweet id or url' and notes that write capability is required. While it doesn't explicitly describe when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives, the prerequisite and primary input are clear, providing solid practical guidance.

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