quote_tweet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It implies a public write ('Quote tweet ... to post') but says nothing about irreversibility, authentication requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior, leaving the agent without meaningful behavioral context 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The action is stated first and the prerequisite second, which is the ideal ordering for quick comprehension.

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?

For a simple write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key prerequisite, and the schema fully covers parameters including the draftOnly safety flag. It is adequate but omits the behavioral disclosure (posting consequences, auth) that would normally come from annotations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents text, media, and draftOnly thoroughly. The description's only parameter-related addition is the phrase 'custom text,' which does not go beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Quote tweet') and a specific resource ('the currently open tweet with custom text'), which is clearly distinct from sibling tools like retweet or post_tweet. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it lands just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Explicitly states the required precondition and names the prerequisite tool: 'Navigate to the tweet first using navigate_to_tweet.' This gives clear context for when the tool can be used, though it stops short of stating exclusions or when not to use it.

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