delete_tweet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Delete' implies destructive and likely irreversible action, but the description does not explicitly state permanence, side effects on retweets/likes, or authentication requirements. This is minimally transparent but lacks explicit warnings common for deletion tools.

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, focused sentence with no superfluous words. It front-loads the action ('Delete') and includes the necessary qualifier ('owned by the authenticated account') and parameter reference ('by tweet id'). Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the simplicity of the operation (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it states what is deleted and under what ownership condition. However, it omits return value information and potential side effects (e.g., irreversible removal), which a thorough description could include, especially without an output 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'tweet_id' with a clear description. The tool description only references 'by tweet id,' which aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 'Delete' with a clear resource 'a tweet owned by the authenticated account, by tweet id.' It unambiguously distinguishes from siblings like 'unlike_tweet' or 'unretweet', which modify engagement rather than removing the tweet itself. The scope ('owned by the authenticated account') adds precise context.

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 context for when to use the tool: to delete a tweet you own. It implicitly excludes deleting others' tweets by specifying 'owned by the authenticated account.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'unlike_tweet' or 'unretweet' for non-destructive actions) or when not to use it, so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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