deleteRetweet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a removal action, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool without annotation coverage.

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 with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Remove a retweet') and adds necessary context ('on behalf of the authenticated user') without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after removal (e.g., success response, error handling), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like side effects or dependencies, leaving critical gaps for agent usage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('user_id' and 'tweet_id') adequately. The description doesn't add any extra meaning or context about these parameters beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 ('Remove a retweet') and specifies it's performed 'on behalf of the authenticated user', which distinguishes it from general deletion tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deletePost' or 'unlikePost', which target different types of content interactions.

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 like 'deletePost' (for original posts) or 'unlikePost' (for likes). It also doesn't mention prerequisites, such as requiring an existing retweet to remove, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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