delete_tweet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the delete action without mentioning permanence, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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 short, front-loaded, and free of fluff. The main purpose is in the first sentence, and the parameter is listed cleanly. It could be considered under-specified, but for what it contains, it is efficiently structured.

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 delete tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits behavioral details (e.g., irreversible deletion, required ownership) that would make it fully contextually complete. With an output schema present, return value omission is acceptable, but usage conditions are not fully addressed.

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%, but the 'Args' section merely restates 'tweet_id: The tweet ID to delete', which adds little beyond the schema property name. It does not clarify the integer/string ambiguity or provide format expectations, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states 'Delete a tweet by ID' which uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('tweet by ID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_retweet or delete_bookmark by specifying the target is a 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 implies the tool is used when you need to delete a tweet, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., delete_retweet) or any prerequisites/exclusions. The context is straightforward but not fully elaborated.

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