twitter_api_request

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that reads and writes share the relay, warns about side effects ('confirm before side effects'), advises verifying writes, and explicitly warns that HTTP 200 may still contain GraphQL errors. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond what schema could convey.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose, workflow guidance referencing the catalog, and a critical behavioral warning about GraphQL errors. Zero filler, front-loaded with the actionable catalog-first directive.

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?

It's a general-purpose request relay tool with 5 params and no output schema. The description wisely points to twitter_request_catalog for operation-specific details, which offloads completeness. The side-effect verification guidance is appropriate for a mutation-capable tool. Lacks some detail about response handling given no output schema, but the catalog referral covers that gap.

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 80%, which is high, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context about endpoint structure (e.g., '/i/api/graphql/...') but doesn't go beyond the schema's own descriptions. With high schema coverage, the description needn't compensate heavily, though it could note that method defaults to GET and confirms the params/headers semantics.

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 executes a single request against a Twitter/X relay, with a specific verb ('execute one request') and resource ('signed-in Twitter/X relay'). It differentiates itself from the sibling twitter_request_catalog by instructing to get templates from that catalog first, making the distinction between the two tools explicit.

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 explicit usage context: get a current template from twitter_request_catalog first, confirm before side effects, and verify writes with follow-up reads. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool, but the alternative is clearly referenced and the workflow (catalog-first) is well articulated.

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