archive_appArchive an app to remove it from active customer operations.
Archive an app and remove it from active customer operations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The AttriKit app id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value by specifying the functional outcome: 'remove it from active customer operations.' This is behavioral context, though the critical risks (destructive, non-idempotent) are already handled by 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and the consequence without unnecessary filler.
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 that it is a simple 1-parameter mutation tool and annotations cover the high-level risks, the description provides enough information for an agent to select it confidently. Missing operational context, however, prevents a perfect score.
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?
Since schema coverage is 100%, the description's role is to add semantics. It merely reiterates that the input is the 'AttriKit app id,' which is already specified in the input schema description. Baseline score applies due to high coverage.
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 defines the action as 'Archive' and specifies the resource (an app), which helps differentiate it from simple deletion tools like delete_integration. However, it does not provide strong context distinguishing 'archive' from 'soft-delete' versus 'hard-delete'.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool in a workflow, such as business justification for archiving. It lacks comparison or context regarding other state changes like deactivation or retirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.