delete_scheduled_tweet

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds a useful note about rate limits and the ID source, but doesn't describe the consequences of deletion (e.g., irreversibility) or any permissions required. For a simple delete operation, this is acceptable but not deeply transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a brief rate-limit note, and a neatly formatted Args section. No redundant information, every sentence earns its place.

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 it's a single-parameter delete tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential usage: what it does, the ID sourcing, and rate limits. It lacks explicit ownership/precondition statements, but those are likely implicit in the broader API context. Overall, it's sufficiently complete for an agent to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining the parameter's source (from create_scheduled_tweet or get_scheduled_tweets) and explicitly warning against confusing it with a regular tweet ID. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 'Delete a scheduled tweet by its scheduled tweet ID' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_tweet by emphasizing the scheduled tweet ID and explicitly noting 'This is NOT a regular tweet ID.'

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 clarifies that the ID comes from create_scheduled_tweet or get_scheduled_tweets, giving context for when to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly name delete_tweet as an alternative for regular tweets, but the 'NOT a regular tweet ID' warning implies this exclusion, providing adequate guidance.

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