Set how often a growth marketing loop runs: 'default', 'biweekly', 'monthly' or 'paused'. Requires the 'config' scope and Founder tier. You can only SLOW or pause a loop, never make it run faster than default. 'default' clears any override.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cadence | Yes | ||
| loop_type | Yes | The growth loop to reschedule, e.g. linkedin_post or geo_improvement. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral details: permission requirements, the speed constraint, and that 'default' clears any override. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and limitations without contradicting annotations.
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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: core function, requirements, and behavioral constraint. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, requirements, constraints, and reset behavior. It lacks explicit alternative tool references, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 description explains the cadence values (including the reset behavior of 'default') and implies the loop_type parameter via 'growth marketing loop'. With 50% schema coverage, this adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema, especially for the cadence enum.
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's function with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('growth marketing loop'), and enumerates the exact cadence values. It also differentiates from sibling tools like set_loop_autonomy and run_loop by focusing on cadence scheduling.
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 clear context for when to use the tool by specifying required scope ('config') and tier ('Founder'), and imposes a key constraint (only slow/pause, never speed up). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the context is strong enough to guide correct usage.
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 follow a clear action+resource pattern (get_, list_, set_, ship_, etc.) with distinct purposes. A few boundaries could cause confusion, such as get_move vs get_output (both return drafts) and ship_move vs set_output_status (both mark things shipped), though descriptions mitigate this sufficiently.
The overwhelming majority use consistent snake_case verb_noun naming (list_feed, ship_move, get_visibility). The only outlier is 'whoami', a common convention but not verb_noun; otherwise the pattern is highly predictable.
At 41 tools, the surface is well over the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, this volume places significant cognitive load on agents and suggests some consolidation or modularization could help.
Core workflows for moves and outputs are covered (create/list/get/update/ship/skip/undo). However, the tool descriptions reference 'approve_output' as the publishing action, yet that tool is absent from the list, leaving a dead end for channel distribution. There are also no tools for editing competitors or managing Memory pages beyond recording insights.