delete_shotDelete a logged shot from history. Restores the bean's remaining weight (which is derived from logged doses). Hard delete — there is no undo. To fix a mistake on an otherwise-valid shot, prefer update_shot over delete-and-relog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| shot_id | Yes | ID of the shot to delete |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| deleted_shot_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the key side effect: restoring the bean's remaining weight, which is derived from logged doses. It also explicitly warns that this is a hard delete with no undo, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations. No contradiction with the annotations exists.
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 tightly written sentences convey action, side effects, and the preferred alternative without any fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence serves a distinct informative purpose.
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?
This is a simple single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, output schema present, annotations covering safety traits, and a description that explains side effects and usage context. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.
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%, and the single parameter shot_id is already documented in the schema. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, but it also does not contribute anything beyond the schema for parameter understanding. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a logged shot from history.' It clearly differentiates from update_shot by emphasizing hard deletion and explicitly naming the alternative. An agent immediately understands what this tool does and how it differs from similar tools.
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 says when to prefer update_shot instead: 'To fix a mistake on an otherwise-valid shot, prefer update_shot over delete-and-relog.' This provides a clear decision rule and contextual guidance beyond a simple definition.
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.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource or action: register_* and list_* are separated by entity, shot tools are split into log/update/delete/diagnose, and the two diagnose variants are explicitly differentiated by dry-run vs. logged evaluation. There is no meaningful overlap that would make an agent choose the wrong tool if it reads the descriptions.
The vast majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: register_*, list_*, set_*, update_*, log_*, get_*. The only deviations are noun-first compound names like grinder_math and kb_changelog, which are still readable and do not break the overall predictability.
At 34 tools, this server exceeds the 25+ threshold where the interface becomes heavy for an agent to navigate. Many of the tools are simple register_/List_ pairs across seven entity types, which inflates the surface area even though each individual tool is understandable.
Core workflows are well covered: logging, updating, deleting, and diagnosing shots; maintaining equipment; and navigating machine state. However, there are notable lifecycle gaps such as no way to list or delete registered programs, no update/delete operations for most equipment types, and no recipe deletion or unlock, which can leave an agent stuck after certain user requests.