post_tweet

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and open-world effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds the draft mode behavior and the need for approval, which is useful context. However, it does not elaborate on other side effects or requirements, leaving open-world behavior somewhat vague.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence covers purpose and parameter clarification; the second explains the critical draft mode behavior. Every sentence adds value.

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 has an output schema (not shown) and annotations cover safety, the description provides all essential context: purpose, parameter clarification, draft mode behavior, and cross-reference to approve_draft. No gaps for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 must compensate. It explicitly defines 'media' as local file paths and 'community' as target community id. The other parameters (text, account) are self-explanatory from the schema. This provides sufficient meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose ('Post a tweet from an account') and explains specific parameters (media, community). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning draft mode, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar posting tools like generate_and_post or reply_to_tweet.

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 clear guidance on draft mode: 'In draft mode (default) returns a draft for review and posts nothing; approve_draft(draft_id) executes it.' This tells the user when to use draft vs direct posting, but does not contrast with alternative posting tools.

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