Reject retweet draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action (mark rejected) but does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements. The reconciliation use case adds some behavioral context, but overall transparency is minimal.

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, direct and waste-free. The key action is front-loaded, with the additional reconciliation use case provided as a bonus, all without redundancy.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the primary purpose and a secondary scenario. However, it could be more explicit about the meaning of 'retweet/undo draft' and what the rejection state implies for draft management, which leaves a small gap.

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 input schema fully describes the 'id' parameter as 'Retweet draft id.' With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional parameter information, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 tool's function: marking a retweet/undo draft as rejected. The verb 'Mark' and resource 'retweet/undo draft' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like reject_draft (for regular drafts) and approve_retweet_draft (the approval counterpart).

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 a primary use case and an explicit secondary scenario: 'Also usable to reconcile a draft stuck in executing after a failed attempt.' This gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the tool name implies it is specific to retweet drafts.

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