lock_recipeLock a successful shot as the reference dialing recipe for this equipment profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| drink_intent | Yes | ||
| from_shot_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| message | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, idempotent), so the description only needs behavioral context. It adds that the shot must be successful and that the result becomes the reference recipe for the equipment profile, which is useful and does not contradict the 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 a single sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the action and object before the purpose clause. Every word contributes meaning.
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 low-complexity tool with output schema and annotations, the core behavior is stated, but the description leaves required parameter semantics, especially drink_intent, unexplained. It also does not clarify what happens if a reference recipe already exists, which an agent may need to know.
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 for the two required parameters. It only implies that from_shot_id references a shot, and it does not explain drink_intent at all or connect either parameter to the locking workflow.
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 states a specific action ("Lock"), a specific object ("a successful shot"), and the resulting role ("reference dialing recipe for this equipment profile"). This clearly separates it from siblings like update_shot, set_active, and suggest_next_step.
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?
"Successful shot" supplies a clear precondition, and "reference dialing recipe" establishes the intended purpose for the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.
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 target a clearly distinct resource and action, and the list/register/update/set tool families are easy to tell apart. The closest pair is diagnose_preview and diagnose_shot, which are well-described but similar enough in name that an agent could select the wrong one.
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_beans, register_grinder, update_shot, set_active). Minor exceptions like grinder_math and kb_changelog lack the imperative verb prefix, but they are readable and do not create real confusion.
34 tools is above the 25+ threshold and feels heavy even though the domain is fairly rich. The many parallel list_* and register_* tools for beans, grinders, machines, scales, waters, programs, and recipes could plausibly be consolidated or trimmed without losing core capability.
The core shot lifecycle is well covered: log, update, delete, diagnose, and list shots, plus bean registration and maintenance tracking. However, most registered entities lack update/delete tools, and get_rule has no corresponding list_rules tool, leaving some obvious workflow gaps that agents must work around.