Retweet post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by stating the required 'tweet.write' scope and the immediacy ('immediately'), but it does not disclose side effects such as whether the draft is consumed or can be undone (though undo_retweet exists as a sibling).

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 a single, dense sentence that covers the action, resource, endpoint, and scope requirement without unnecessary words. It is well-front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, the endpoint, the scope, and the draft precondition. It could mention the return value or relationship to undo_retweet, but overall it is complete enough for basic usage.

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 schema description for 'id' is simple ('Retweet draft id (action must be retweet)'), while the tool description adds the important constraint that the draft must be 'approved.' This clarifies when the tool can be used and goes beyond the schema.

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 ('Retweet an approved draft'), the target ('to X'), and the mechanism ('via POST /2/users/:id/retweets'). It distinguishes from sibling draft-management tools by focusing on the posting action, not drafting or approving.

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 this tool is used when you have an approved retweet draft and want to post it immediately. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the condition 'approved draft' and endpoint give some context.

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