Delete tweet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature (delete), ownership requirement, and authentication mechanism via login_cookies. It does not mention reversibility or side effects, but these are typical for a delete operation.

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?

The description is two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the action and constraint, and the second adding authentication context. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded.

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 delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: action, target, ownership requirement, and auth setup. It does not explain error behavior or return values, but these are not critical given the simplicity.

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%, with the single parameter `tweet_id` described as 'The ID of the tweet to delete'. The description adds context about ownership and auth but does not add new detail about the parameter itself, resulting in adequate but minimal added value.

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 'Delete a tweet by ID' and adds the ownership constraint, distinguishing it from read-only or creation siblings like get_user_mentions and create_tweet.

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 specifies that the tweet must be owned by the logged-in account and mentions the required authentication setup, giving clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the ownership condition implies it.

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