Quote a post

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a mutation (POST), requires user confirmation, has plan-specific restrictions, includes pricing details, and enforces content integrity rules. This goes well beyond annotations and provides crucial operational context.

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 three sentences, each dense with actionable information. It front-loads the endpoint and confirmation requirement, then covers restrictions, pricing, and content policy. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: confirmation, availability, pricing, and content constraints. It does not describe the response format, but that is not required. Minor omission of media_ids details, but overall sufficient 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 description coverage is only 25% (only confirm is described). The description mentions quote_tweet_id in the endpoint and references text in the context of not inventing it, but does not clarify media_ids or the exact format of text. It adds some value over the schema but does not fully compensate for the low coverage, especially for media_ids.

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 explicitly states 'POST /2/tweets with quote_tweet_id', clearly indicating the action (quoting a post) and the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like x_organic_reply or x_organic_create_post, which have different endpoints and purposes. The title reinforces the purpose.

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 provides explicit usage constraints: confirm=true is mandatory, and it warns about Enterprise-only availability and potential 403 errors. It also cautions against inventing content. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool beyond plan restrictions, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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