ingest_apify_twitter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reveal meaningful behavior: side effects ('Archives + runs extractors'), asynchronous processing (returns jobId, requires polling), and a constraint ('Active only'). It does not cover failure modes or reversibility, but it provides more behavioral context than many tool descriptions.

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 just two sentences and front-loads the verb and object. Every phrase ('Archives + runs extractors', 'Returns jobId', 'Active only') is essential and free of filler.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the main flow: upload, side effects, response handle, polling, and a precondition. It is slightly incomplete because 'Active only' is terse and it does not address failure/error behavior, but overall it gives the agent enough to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema fully documents all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the items format ('array or {items|data}') without adding nuance about default token/investigation_id usage or parameter interplay, thus adding minimal value 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 clearly states the specific action ('Upload Apify Twitter export JSON'), specifies the input format, and distinguishes itself from siblings by outlining the asynchronous job flow ('Returns jobId; poll get_ingest_job until completed'). It also names the resource and expected side effects ('Archives + runs extractors').

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 provides a clear usage protocol: after uploading, poll get_ingest_job for completion, which explicitly indicates when to use the related polling tool. It also hints at a precondition with 'Active only', implying the investigation must be active. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over other ingest/debug tools or exclude misuse.

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