Create post

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

Annotations only convey that the tool writes to the open world. The description adds significant behavioral detail: never invent content, require explicit confirmation, pay-per-use costs, link-warning obligation, absence of native scheduling, and media type limits. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 adds operative guidance, and high-priority constraints are front-loaded: content provenance, confirmation requirement, and costs. The description is dense but not bloated, and it avoids repeating schema fields unnecessarily.

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 high-complexity write tool with no output schema, the description covers confirmation, media sourcing, cost, link warnings, and scheduling boundaries very well. The main gaps are the absence of guidance on reply_settings and what the tool returns on success, though the enum covers the former partially.

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 only 25%, so the description carries much of the burden. It adds real meaning for confirm (must follow explicit named ask) and media_ids (must come from x_organic_upload_media, max 4 photos/1 GIF/1 video). However, text and reply_settings receive no description-level guidance beyond their schema types/enum.

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 action as creating a tweet via 'POST /2/tweets' and adds important scope constraints ('Use only the copy/media the user supplied'). It is distinct from scheduling tools, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling post-creation tools like x_organic_create_thread, x_organic_reply, or x_organic_quote.

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 explicit conditions: confirm=true is required after an explicit named ask, links require a warning, and scheduling must be delegated to x_organic_schedule_* tools rather than inventing a publish time. It also points to x_organic_upload_media for media_ids. However, it does not directly state when to choose this tool over reply/thread/quote siblings.

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