edit_tweet

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false) the description adds substantive behavior: approval is always required, edit-post must be exposed by X, eligibility/time limits apply, and media replacement is unsupported. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs and that the annotation set does not encode.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then constraints, in four tight sentences with little waste. The stray 'configure self_handles' clause is the one line that does not earn its place and slightly muddies an otherwise efficient description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a four-parameter mutation tool with zero schema description coverage, the description leaves account and tweet_url undocumented and references a phantom parameter, so it is not fully complete 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It only loosely maps 'current exact text' and 'replacement' to expected_text and text, leaves account and tweet_url unexplained, and introduces a non-existent 'self_handles' parameter that matches nothing in the schema, creating confusion rather than clarity.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Prepare a text edit of your own post.' This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like delete_tweet, post_tweet, queue_post, and reply_to_tweet, and the 'prepare' framing signals it stages an action rather than committing one.

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 real preconditions: 'X must expose Edit post; eligibility/time limits apply' and 'Always requires approval.' That tells the agent when the tool is usable, but it never names alternative siblings (e.g. delete_tweet or a repost path) for when editing is not eligible, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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