delete_tweet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing critical behavioral traits. It doesn't mention that deletion is destructive/irreversible, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output might indicate (success/failure). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 with just five words, front-loading the key action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's complexity (a destructive mutation with no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which likely handles return values), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and parameter details needed for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds minimal semantic context by specifying that the parameter is 'tweet_id' for deletion. However, it doesn't explain the ID format (e.g., numeric string), validation rules, or examples. With only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a tweet by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'delete_bookmark' or 'delete_list' beyond the resource type, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing authorization to delete tweets), exclusions (e.g., can't delete others' tweets), or related tools like 'unretweet' or 'unfavorite_tweet' that might be confused with deletion.

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