Undo retweet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the HTTP method (DELETE), endpoint, 'immediate' execution, and 'tweet.write' scope. However, it does not explain the effect on the original draft or whether the action is reversible, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence that includes the action, resource, endpoint, and required scope. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, earning a perfect score.

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 what it does, how via the endpoint, and the authentication requirement. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool, though it could mention the response format or edge cases.

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 has 100% coverage with the description 'Retweet draft id (action must be undo).' The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('undo') and resource ('approved retweet draft'), and includes the exact endpoint (DELETE /2/users/:id/retweets/:tweet_id). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like approve_retweet_draft and reject_retweet_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?

It states the tool is for undoing an approved retweet draft, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'approved retweet draft' implies it is not for other draft states.

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