ghl_social_attach_twitter_profile

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical deprecation context beyond annotations, revealing the tool is obsolete and likely non-functional. It does not detail what happens if invoked, but the deprecation warning suffices for transparency.

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 front-loaded with the deprecation warning and endpoint, which is effective. However, it includes verbose HTML formatting for the warning, making it longer than necessary. The structure is good but slightly verbose.

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 deprecated and has a nested input schema with no output schema, the description provides essential deprecation context and the endpoint. It lacks parameter explanations, but for a deprecated tool, the selection guidance is complete enough.

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 (all parameters have a description), but those descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Account Id', 'Request body...'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning for parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting but with weak semantics.

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 tool attaches a Twitter profile and immediately flags it as deprecated, making the purpose unambiguous. The sibling tools are other social attachment tools, which it distinguishes itself from by the specific platform (Twitter). The deprecation warning is upfront.

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 explicitly states 'DEPRECATED per official docs — prefer the documented replacement if one exists' and includes a red box confirming X is no longer supported. This provides clear when-not-to-use guidance and suggests an alternative, which is ideal for a deprecated tool.

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