Restore a just-shipped or just-skipped growth move to pending: the self-correction verb for a wrong ship_move or skip_move. Free; requires the 'act' scope. Idempotent on a move already pending. It never unwinds a real channel publish: a posted output stays posted, and an archived or expired move cannot be restored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| move_id | Yes | Move id (uuid), from list_feed. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral details beyond that: 'Free', 'requires the act scope', 'Idempotent on a move already pending', and to key exclusions: 'never unwinds a real channel publish' and 'archived or expired move cannot be restored'.
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?
One dense, front-loaded sentence conveys the verb, scope, idempotence, and key exclusions without wasted words. Every clause 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?
Despite no output schema and a single parameter, the description covers what it does, when to use it, prerequisites, and edge cases (already pending, published, archived/expired). No meaningful gaps for an AI agent.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description ('Move id (uuid), from list_feed.'). The description does not add parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 the action with a specific verb and resource: 'Restore a just-shipped or just-skipped growth move to pending'. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming ship_move and skip_move as the actions it reverses.
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?
It clearly frames when to use this tool ('self-correction verb for a wrong ship_move or skip_move') and gives explicit limitations ('an archived or expired move cannot be restored'). It also mentions a prerequisite ('requires the act scope').
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 have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions are thorough. A few pairs (e.g., ship_move vs set_output_status, dismiss_gap vs skip_move) overlap on the dismissal concept but operate on different surfaces, so an agent can usually tell them apart with careful reading.
All tool names follow the same snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_move, create_checkout, untrack_prompt). Retrieval tools consistently use get_ for single items and list_ for collections, and action verbs are precise, so the naming is fully predictable.
42 tools is heavy by any standard, exceeding the 25+ threshold in the calibration. While each tool may earn its place given the breadth of the domain, the sheer number will overwhelm an agent and complicate tool selection.
The tool set covers the main lifecycles well: moves (list/get/ship/skip/archive/undo/update), outputs (list/get/ship/redraft), connections (list/start/poll/disconnect), prompts (track/untrack/list), and scans (refresh/get/set intensity). Minor gaps exist, such as no direct edit for KB pages, but record_insight partially fills that.