post_tweet

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It discloses the reply_to mechanism and the >280 character capability with an eligibility caveat. It does not discuss rate limits, authentication, or irreversibility, but for a tweet-posting tool this is a reasonable level.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no redundant fluff. Each sentence adds distinct 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?

Given the small parameter count and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential functionality and optional modifiers. It could mention rate limits or post visibility, but for a simple tool it is adequate.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains reply_to as a tweet id and is_note_tweet as enabling long-form, which is not evident from the schema. Text is self-explanatory.

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?

States 'Post a tweet' as a specific verb+resource. The name and description distinguish it from siblings like delete_tweet, retweet, and send_direct_message by focusing on creation.

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?

Provides clear context for replying (reply_to) and long-form posts (is_note_tweet). Does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the instructions cover the main usage scenarios.

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