post_tweet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the action is a publish (a write operation) and that it returns the URL of the created tweet, which is valuable. However, it omits any mention of rate limits, irreversibility, or authentication requirements beyond the implied 'authenticated account', leaving behavioral gaps.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return value, and the second sentence provides a useful parameter hint. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return behavior. It falls slightly short in not addressing potential confusion with quote_tweet or providing any context about when to use this tool versus alternatives, but overall it is adequately complete.

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% for both parameters, with clear descriptions for text (including the 280-char/note-tweet distinction) and reply_to. The description's mention of 'Use reply_to to reply to an existing tweet id' adds little beyond the schema's 'Optional tweet id to reply to', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Publish a new tweet') and the resource scope ('from the authenticated account'). It distinguishes this from mutating tools like delete_tweet or like_tweet, and the phrase 'new tweet' sets it apart from retweet/quote actions, even though quote_tweet is a sibling.

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 gives a direct usage hint for the reply_to parameter ('Use reply_to to reply to an existing tweet id'), which implies a common use case. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like quote_tweet or retweet, nor does it provide any exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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