unretweet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the action without mentioning what happens if the tweet wasn't retweeted, rate limits, idempotency, or any error conditions. This is insufficient for safe agent use.

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 very short and front-loaded, which is positive. However, it lacks important contextual information that could be included without becoming verbose. Some behavioral details would improve it while maintaining conciseness.

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?

Given that annotations are missing and the tool is a mutation, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value (though an output schema exists), side effects, or edge cases like attempting to unretweet a non-retweeted tweet. This leaves the agent underinformed.

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% for the single parameter 'tweet_id', which is described as 'The numeric tweet ID to unretweet.' The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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?

The description 'Undo a retweet' clearly identifies the verb (undo) and resource (retweet), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'retweet' which performs the opposite action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_tweet' or 'unlike_tweet'. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the tweet must have been previously retweeted, or any scenarios where using this tool would be inappropriate.

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