quote_tweet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the core behavior (publication), the required input (quoted tweet), and the return (new tweet URL). However, it does not discuss side effects (notification to the quoted user), authentication requirements, or failure modes. It is minimally transparent but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with the tool's name and core function. Efficient and clear.

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 no output schema, the description covers the function, input requirements, and output. It lacks details about authorization and side effects, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (text: 'Your commentary'; quoted: 'URL or id of the tweet to quote'). The description adds nuance by specifying 'bare id' and framing the action as 'publish text quoting another tweet', which clarifies the relationship between parameters. It also mentions the return URL, which is not in the schema. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though the schema already provided high 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 clearly states the action: 'publish `text` quoting another tweet' – a specific verb (publish) and resource (a quote tweet). It distinguishes from siblings like post_tweet and retweet by specifying the quote behavior and the need for a quoted tweet's URL or id.

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 when to use: when you want to post a quote tweet with your commentary. It also specifies the input requirement (the quoted tweet's id or URL). However, it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools like retweet or post_tweet, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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