Approve retweet draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool marks the draft as approved and that approval is required for execution. The safety guideline about calling only after user review adds valuable behavioral context. However, it omits details about permissions, reversibility, or other side effects.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds distinct information: the action, the system rule, and the usage condition. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary action, a key system rule, and a usage condition. It could mention the counteraction (reject_retweet_draft) or the draft lifecycle, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema as 'Retweet draft id.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Mark a retweet/undo draft approved' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like approve_draft and approve_dm_draft by explicitly scoping to retweet/undo drafts, making the purpose 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?

Provides an explicit condition: 'Call only after the user explicitly reviewed the action.' Also notes 'Only approved drafts can be executed,' which implies the tool is a prerequisite for execution. It does not explicitly name alternative approval tools, but the context is clear enough.

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