Archive a growth move: a lighter dismissal than skip, with no verdict recorded. Free; requires the 'act' scope. Idempotent on an already-archived move.
| 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?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses useful behavioral traits: it is 'Free' (cost/rate implication), requires the 'act' scope (authorization context), and is 'Idempotent on an already-archived move.' It also clarifies a key side effect: 'no verdict recorded.' These details add significant value and do 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then delivering key differentiators and constraints. Every phrase earns its place; no filler or redundancy.
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 simple one-parameter mutation tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides purpose, usage contrast, authorization, idempotence, and cost context. It does not mention the return value or success/failure behavior, but with no output schema defined, this is a minor gap; the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The input schema already fully describes the only parameter (move_id: 'string, from list_feed') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Archive a growth move') with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes it from skip by noting it's 'a lighter dismissal than skip, with no verdict recorded.' This differentiates it from the sibling skip_move and other move-related 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?
It provides a clear context for when to use this tool versus skip_move by contrasting them ('lighter dismissal than skip, with no verdict recorded'), implying the use case. However, it does not explicitly list other alternatives or state when NOT to use it beyond the skip comparison, so it stops short of full when/when-not 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 follow a clear action+resource pattern (get_, list_, set_, ship_, etc.) with distinct purposes. A few boundaries could cause confusion, such as get_move vs get_output (both return drafts) and ship_move vs set_output_status (both mark things shipped), though descriptions mitigate this sufficiently.
The overwhelming majority use consistent snake_case verb_noun naming (list_feed, ship_move, get_visibility). The only outlier is 'whoami', a common convention but not verb_noun; otherwise the pattern is highly predictable.
At 41 tools, the surface is well over the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, this volume places significant cognitive load on agents and suggests some consolidation or modularization could help.
Core workflows for moves and outputs are covered (create/list/get/update/ship/skip/undo). However, the tool descriptions reference 'approve_output' as the publishing action, yet that tool is absent from the list, leaving a dead end for channel distribution. There are also no tools for editing competitors or managing Memory pages beyond recording insights.