delete_tweet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Delete' implies a destructive, likely irreversible action, and 'your own tweets' conveys an ownership requirement. However, it does not state irreversibility, potential errors, or permission requirements beyond ownership, 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 a single, concise sentence that communicates everything essential about the tool. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate. It covers what the tool does and the ownership constraint. Missing details like return value or error behavior are not critical for such a straightforward delete operation.

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 schema has one parameter (tweet_id) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description says 'by id', which clarifies that the tweet_id parameter is the identifier of the tweet to delete. This compensates for the schema's lack of detail, though it could specify the expected format or where to obtain the ID.

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 states the action (delete), the resource (one of your own tweets), and the method (by id). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like like_tweet or post_tweet by specifying ownership and deletion.

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 phrase 'your own tweets' provides clear context on when to use this tool, implying it should not be used for tweets belonging to others. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions beyond that, though the intent is clear given the tool name.

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