opentweet_add_to_evergreen

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveness (destructiveHint=true). The description does not add behavioral context beyond the basic action. It doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or what happens to the pool, which is acceptable given annotations cover the destructiveness hint.

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 sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with the main action. Every word 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?

The description is adequate for a tool with full schema descriptions, but it focuses only on 'text' for new posts, omitting other parameters like category, media, etc. Given 8 parameters and no output schema, a slightly more comprehensive overview would improve completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of 'post_id' and 'text' ('either ... or'), which is not enforced in the schema. This helps the agent understand the correct usage pattern.

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: adding a post to the evergreen queue pool. It distinguishes two modes (add existing by ID or create new with text), which sets it apart from sibling tools like opentweet_create_tweet or opentweet_remove_from_evergreen.

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 implies the two usage scenarios but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives. No mention of preconditions or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the sibling names.

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