opentweet_schedule_tweet

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, implying state changes, but the description does not clarify that scheduling removes the draft from drafts or whether the action is reversible. It adds no detail beyond the basic action.

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 concise sentences cover the essential purpose and constraints with zero redundancy. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 scheduling tool, the description covers core behavior (schedule draft) and constraints (must be draft, future date). It does not explain post-scheduling behavior (e.g., automatic posting) or return value, but given no output schema and common expectations, it is reasonably complete.

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 both parameters are fully documented. The description restates the draft constraint (related to 'id') and echoes the future-time requirement for 'scheduled_date', providing no additional 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 uses a specific verb ('Schedule') and resource ('existing draft tweet') and clearly states constraints ('must be a draft, not already posted or an evergreen source'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like opentweet_publish_tweet and opentweet_batch_schedule.

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 specifies when the tool is appropriate (draft tweets only) and excludes evergreen sources and already posted content. It implies usage context but does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-draft posts.

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