createRetweet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a retweet, implying a write operation that creates a public share, but lacks details on permissions (e.g., if the user can retweet private posts), rate limits, error conditions (e.g., if the post is deleted), or what the response includes (e.g., success confirmation or new retweet ID). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 tool is a mutation (creating a retweet) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for an AI agent to use it correctly in context with sibling tools.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions for 'user_id' and 'tweet_id'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying these are required for the retweet action, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Retweet') and resource ('a post') with the context 'on behalf of the authenticated user', which specifies the agent. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'getRetweets' (which retrieves retweets) or 'deleteRetweet' (which removes one), though the verb 'Retweet' implies creation versus deletion or retrieval.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'createRetweet' over 'likePost' for engagement, or how it differs from 'bookmarkPost' in saving content. There's also no mention of prerequisites, such as needing authentication or valid post IDs.

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