twitter_publish_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the character limits (280 standard, 25000 for Premium) and the return format (JSON string with tweet ID and permalink). However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, irreversibility of publishing, or error behavior, which would be useful for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative, and there is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose, parameters, and return value. The output schema exists, so return details are not solely dependent on the description. The main gap is lack of explicit usage guidance versus the thread-publishing sibling and absence of auth/error context, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameters. It does: 'text' is described with content and character constraints, and 'reply_to_id' is explained as an optional tweet ID to reply to. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 'Publish' with a clear resource ('a tweet to Twitter/X') and an optional behavior ('as a reply to another tweet'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like twitter_publish_thread, which publishes threads, and threads_publish_text, which targets a different platform.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool for a single tweet, optionally as a reply. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as 'for multiple tweets, use twitter_publish_thread instead.' The context is clear but not explicitly differentiated.

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