Create post

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing confirmation requirements, pay-per-use costs, link-warning obligations, and the absence of native scheduling. It also warns against inventing content and clarifies media type limits. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a paid, user-visible action.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: endpoint, content faithfulness, confirmation, cost, link warning, scheduling limitation, and media caps are all packed in without filler. The most critical operational constraints are front-loaded, making the description easy to parse quickly.

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 paid, user-visible mutation with no output schema and limited annotation support, the description covers the most critical operational risks: confirmation, cost, content provenance, link warnings, scheduling, and media limits. It falls slightly short only by not explaining reply_settings semantics or the expected return shape, but these are secondary for correct invocation.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for text (use only user-supplied copy, never invent) and media_ids (from x_organic_upload_media; up to 4 photos, 1 GIF, or 1 video). However, reply_settings is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving one parameter under-specified.

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 identifies the operation as creating a single post via the specific endpoint POST /2/tweets, with concrete content constraints. It is distinct from sibling tools like x_organic_create_thread, x_organic_reply, and x_organic_quote, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 gives clear conditions for use: only after an explicit named ask, with confirm=true, and after warning the user about link costs. It also states that X API has no native scheduling, so agents should not fake a queue or publish time. It does not explicitly contrast with thread/reply/quote tools, but the context is otherwise strong.

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