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 indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context: cost ('Free'), required scope ('act'), idempotency, side-effect boundaries (channel publish stays posted), and limitations (archived/expired cannot be restored). This exceeds what annotations provide.
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 sentences, each dense with purpose and constraints. No fluff, and the most important action (restore to pending) is front-loaded. Every sentence 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?
Covers key behavioral aspects, side effects, and limitations. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by stating idempotency, but it doesn't explicitly describe the success return or error cases, leaving a small gap.
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% for the single parameter move_id, with a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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+resource+outcome: 'Restore a just-shipped or just-skipped growth move to pending'. It clearly distinguishes this tool as the self-correction for ship_move and skip_move, setting it apart from siblings like archive_move.
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 explicitly states when to use: for a wrong ship_move or skip_move. It also gives when-not: 'It never unwinds a real channel publish' and 'an archived or expired move cannot be restored'. While no alternative tool is named, the scope is well defined for the decision.
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.