twitter_unretweet

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write/mutation operation. The description adds that write capability is required and that the action is performed 'AS your authenticated account'. It does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., notification to original poster) or authentication details, but the schema provides rich parameter descriptions for cookies and proxy.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action and constraint. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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?

Despite concise purpose, the description lacks details about expected output (no output schema) and does not mention the optional authentication parameters (ct0, auth_token, etc.) even though they are critical for execution. An agent may not know that those parameters must be supplied for write operations. More context about error handling or success indication would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds valuable mutual exclusivity constraint for id/url ('Provide exactly one of id or url'), which is not enforced in the schema. This extra clarity improves usability beyond the schema alone.

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 clear verb-resource pair 'Undo a retweet' and specifies 'AS your authenticated account'. It distinguishes from sister tools like twitter_retweet (which does the opposite) and twitter_delete_tweet (which deletes a tweet, not a retweet). The scope is 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?

The description implies the tool is for undoing a retweet, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives. However, the action is specific enough that an agent can infer usage context from the name and description. A clear alternative mention is missing.

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