delete_retweet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral transparency. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, error conditions, permissions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence plus an Args block. It front-loads the core purpose and keeps every word useful, with no filler or irrelevant detail.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the basic operation and parameter semantics. However, it lacks context about potential failure modes (e.g., what happens if the tweet hasn't been retweeted), authentication requirements, or return value. Since no output schema or annotations are provided, the description leaves some gaps, but the tool is simple enough that this is barely acceptable.

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 provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description adds a one-line explanation: 'tweet_id: The tweet ID to un-retweet.' This clarifies the purpose of the parameter beyond its title 'Tweet Id', but it does not provide additional details like format constraints or context. This is a modest improvement over 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 action: 'Un-retweet a tweet by ID.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tool 'retweet' confirms this is the inverse operation, distinguishing it from related tools like 'delete_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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool or when to avoid it. The purpose is obvious from the name and description, but there is no guidance on alternatives or conditions (e.g., only for tweets the user has retweeted). Usage is implied but not explicitly framed.

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