set_equipment_archivedArchive or restore a grinder, machine, water, or scale.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the equipment | |
| kind | Yes | The kind of equipment to archive/restore | |
| archived | Yes | 1 to archive, 0 to restore |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| message | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the core safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond restating the action, but it does not contradict the annotations either.
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, focused sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes useful identifying information, and the action 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?
Given the simple three-parameter schema with complete property descriptions, an output schema, and annotations conveying idempotence and non-destructiveness, very little is missing. A small gap remains in explaining what archival means in the domain or how it interacts with related statuses like active.
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 schema already explains id, kind, and archived with enumerations and descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the input schema provides.
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 clear action ('Archive or restore') and identifies the resource and scoped kinds ('a grinder, machine, water, or scale'), matching the kind enum. It is specific but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as set_active, which could also change an equipment status.
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 no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'archive or restore'.
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.