create_loop

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 reveals non-obvious runtime traits: capx never generates content, firing only sends pre-written text, the loop pauses and asks for more when the queue empties, and an account-age prerequisite exists. This is exactly the kind of info an agent would otherwise discover only after invoking.

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, all substantive and non-redundant. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveats and requirement are delivered without fluff or repetition.

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?

The definition plus schema gives the agent everything needed to invoke correctly: what the tool does, what content to supply, how the loop behaves, and a hard prerequisite. It is slightly short of complete because it doesn't indicate what the call returns or explicitly route to post_now for one-off posting, but neither blocks correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema for the `posts` parameter by making clear that the agent is solely responsible for authoring content and that capx will not fill in generated text. It doesn't add detail for time, timezone, or daysOfWeek, but those are already well documented in the schema.

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 opens with 'Schedule recurring posts,' a specific verb and resource that clearly states the tool's function. It also distinguishes this from siblings like post_now (one-off posting) and loop management tools (pause_loop, list_loops, delete_loop) by emphasizing recurrence and the loop lifecycle.

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 context: the agent must write the posts itself, capx never generates content, and a verified X account at least 30 days old is required. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of post_now,' but the guidance is sufficient for correct use.

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