undo_retweet

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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write; the description adds the crucial two-phase draft-then-approve behavior that the annotations do not convey. It does not say what happens if approve_draft is never called or whether the repost can be restored, but the flow disclosure is substantive.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the action stated first and the workflow constraint second. 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the required-approval flow is covered. The remaining gap is the undocumented parameters, which the description does not compensate for.

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% and both parameters (account, tweet_url) are undocumented in the schema. The description only weakly implies semantics via 'one exact post' and 'your repost', without clarifying that account is the reposting account or that tweet_url must identify a single post.

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 names a specific action (removing your repost) on a specific resource (one exact post), which separates it from siblings like unlike_tweet and remove_bookmark. The word 'Prepare' introduces mild ambiguity about whether the removal happens now or is staged, but the second sentence resolves it.

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?

It states the mandatory workflow step ('Always requires approve_draft'), effectively naming the sibling tool that must follow, which is real usage guidance. It does not state when NOT to use it or contrast with unrelated-removal siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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