regenerate_repliesRedraft the replies of specific posts with an edit request (e.g. 'shorter, no emojis, lead with the user's problem'). Costs 5 credits per reply regenerated; already-claimed replies are refused. Get post ids from get_posts. Confirm the spend with the user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post_ids | Yes | Post UUIDs whose replies to redraft | |
| campaign_id | Yes | ||
| edit_request | Yes | How the replies should change |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important non-obvious behaviors beyond the annotations: a cost of 5 credits per reply, refusal of already-claimed replies, and the need to confirm expenditure with the user. This exceeds what readOnlyHint and destructiveHint convey, though it could additionally clarify whether existing drafts are replaced.
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?
Three sentences deliver the tool's purpose, side effects, cost, eligibility constraint, and user-confirmation requirement without padding. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds operational value.
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 absence of an output schema, the description still covers the essential behavior, cost, and refusal condition. The missing output format or return value is a minor gap because the operation's user-visible effect is clearly stated.
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 documents only 'post_ids' with a description; the description adds concrete meaning for 'edit_request' via examples and clarifies 'post_ids' come from 'get_posts'. 'campaign_id' remains implicit, but the overall semantics are sufficiently enriched.
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 identifies the action ('redraft the replies'), the target resource ('replies of specific posts'), and the mechanism ('with an edit request'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_posts, which is about creating posts, and review_posts, which is about reviewing rather than regenerating.
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 gives clear procedural guidance: obtain post IDs from get_posts and confirm the credit spend with the user before proceeding. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools map cleanly to a distinct resource and action: campaigns, posts, products, research, content spaces, and submissions. A few pairs are close—`create_campaign` vs `create_content_campaign` and `check_balance` vs `get_earnings`—but the detailed descriptions make the intended selection clear.
The set largely follows a consistent `verb_noun` snake_case pattern (`list_campaigns`, `generate_posts`, `update_campaign`, `submit_participation`). Minor deviations keep it from a perfect score: `credit_history` lacks a verb, and `create_campaign` reads as generic next to the more specific `create_content_campaign`.
30 tools is high and makes the server feel heavy, but the domain genuinely spans products, credits, campaigns, research, post discovery, content spaces, boosts, and participation rewards. The breadth mostly earns the count, though it sits on the wrong side of the typical 3–15 range.
The core end-to-end workflow is covered: create and configure campaigns, discover and refine posts, run research, find opportunities, submit work, and measure results. Gaps exist but are minor for the central purpose—product listings can’t be updated or deleted, and delegates can be added but not removed.