top_up_loop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool adds posts and resumes a paused loop, and it implies an ownership constraint with 'YOU wrote.' However, it does not clarify whether posts are appended or replace the queue, whether active loops can also be topped up, or what happens when validation fails.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and scope; the second adds the key resumption behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple, but the description omits important operational details: the meaning of 'id', the expected format of 'posts', and any side effects beyond resuming a paused loop. It is sufficient for a rough understanding but not fully self-contained given the absent annotations and minimal schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives partial meaning to 'posts' by saying they are posts YOU wrote and belong in a loop's queue, but it never explains what the strings should contain (IDs, text, media URLs?). The 'id' parameter is not described at all, leaving it ambiguous whether it is the loop ID or something else.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add'), names the resource ('a loop's queue'), and adds a clear scope ('posts YOU wrote'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_loop and post_now by stating it operates on an existing loop queue and can resume a paused loop.

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 a clear when-to-use condition: add posts when a loop paused because it ran out of content. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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