Archive a customer by setting their status to 'archived'. Reversible by updating the status back to active when reactivation is needed.
Archive a customer. Sets their status to 'archived'. This is reversible by updating their status back.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customerId | Yes | The customer ID to archive |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds that status is set to 'archived' and is reversible, providing some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, lacks details on side effects (e.g., on licenses, subscriptions) and permissions required.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and effect. No unnecessary words.
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?
Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. Mentions reversibility, but could note typical response or related implications (e.g., if customer has active subscriptions).
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 already describes the single parameter with 100% coverage. Description adds no new meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states the action (archive), resource (customer), and effect (sets status to archived). It distinguishes from siblings like ls_update_customer by specifying the specific operation.
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?
Implies usage when customer should be archived, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. Mentions reversibility but does not contrast with related tools like ls_deactivate_license.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.