archive_workerSoft-delete a worker: it can no longer claim or lease tasks, disappears from list_client_team and whoami by default, and stops counting against your organization's worker quota. All history — past task assignments, receipts, transparency-log entries — remains intact and queryable. Reversible with unarchive_worker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Why this worker is being retired. | |
| worker_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies exactly what changes (no new claims/leases, visibility changes, quota impact) and what is preserved (history, receipts, transparency logs). It also clarifies that despite destructiveHint: true, this is a reversible soft delete, which is valuable, non-contradictory nuance.
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 dense sentences cover the core action, all relevant side effects, retained data, and reversibility. There is no filler, and the most important semantic qualifier—'soft-delete'—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?
For a two-parameter tool with a self-evident required ID and a fully described optional reason, the description provides everything an agent needs: behavioral effects, historical data preservation, quota impact, and the unarchive path. No output schema exists, but none is needed to invoke this 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 description does not explain the parameters, and schema coverage is 50% because worker_id lacks a description. However, worker_id is semantically obvious and required, while reason already has an explanatory schema description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema and tool name provide.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource—'Soft-delete a worker'—and enumerates concrete consequences (no task claiming, disappears from list_client_team and whoami, no longer counts against quota). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_worker and unarchive_worker.
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 makes the soft-delete semantics explicit and names the reversal path through unarchive_worker, which gives an agent a clear condition for choosing this tool. It does not explicitly contrast with delete_worker as a hard-delete alternative, so it stops short of fully explicit 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 target a distinct resource and action, but several adjacent pairs are easy to confuse: add_comment vs add_progress_note, call_executor vs call_integration, log_client_decision vs update_client_context vs memory_save, and list_context_sources vs list_integrations. The descriptions do disambiguate them, but the boundaries are subtle enough that misselection is likely with 81 tools.
The overwhelming majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_task, update_project, list_integrations, set_webhook), and get_/ list_/ create_/ update_ families are predictable. Minor deviations exist: memory_read/memory_save/memory_search invert to object_verb, and bare nouns like whoami, glossary, and security_posture break the pattern, but there is no chaotic casing or mixed conventions.
At 81 tools, this is far above the weight that is comfortable for an agent's tool-selection surface, especially since many tools belong to families that could be consolidated (webhooks, worker keys, project logs, context/memory). Although the domain is broad, the count will overwhelm agents and increase misrouting.
The surface is unusually comprehensive: tasks, projects, workers, leases, artifacts, comments, handoffs, webhooks, keys, context, memory, integrations, and support all have create/read/update/delete or equivalent lifecycle coverage. The gaps are minor, such as remove_dependency without a visible add_dependency and no artifact/comment deletion, but agents can work around them.