Create retweet draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that the action is not executed until approved, and that retweet_post or undo_retweet must be called later. It also gives the format for the post id. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but for a draft-creation tool, the non-execution trait is the critical behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds the critical non-execution note and the id format. Every sentence earns its place; no filler. Front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 draft-creation tool with two parameters, the description covers the core function, the approval workflow, and the id format. It does not explain return values, but an output schema is absent so this is not strictly required. It slightly lacks explicit mention of how the draft will later be managed (e.g., via list_retweet_drafts), but the sibling tool set implies this. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a low-complexity tool.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by specifying the exact format for tweetId: 'Pass the numeric post id from an X URL (e.g. .../status/1234567890).' This reinforces and clarifies the schema description, offering a concrete example that aids correct invocation.

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-resource pair: 'Create a draft retweet or undo-retweet action.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like retweet_post (which executes) and create_draft (which creates a regular draft). It also specifies the resource (retweet/undo-retweet) and outcome (draft).

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 states 'NOT executed until approved and retweet_post or undo_retweet is called,' implying this tool is used to stage an action for later approval, and explicitly mentions the subsequent execution tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives like retweet_post/undo_retweet as direct options, but the workflow context is clear. It also provides the URL format for the tweetId parameter.

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