wave_archive_accountArchive an account to hide it while preserving its transaction history. Use it only for non-system accounts without a balance; archiving cannot be reversed through the API.
Archive an account (hide it while keeping its history). Wave refuses for system accounts and accounts with a balance. No un-archive through the API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Account ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context annotations cannot carry: the two server-side refusal conditions and the fact that the action is irreversible through the API ('No un-archive'). That is precisely the risk information an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.
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 short sentences, no filler: the operation's effect first, then the refusal conditions, then the irreversibility warning. Each sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by failing the call.
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 one-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, effect, preconditions and irreversibility are all covered. A minor gap remains around what happens to linked transactions/reports after archiving, but nothing required to invoke the tool correctly is missing.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'Account ID'. The description adds no further meaning about the id (format, where to obtain it), which is the baseline 3 when the schema does the work.
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?
States a specific verb and resource and then glosses the operation's semantics: 'hide it while keeping its history.' That gloss is what distinguishes archive from delete, and the resource word distinguishes it from the sibling wave_archive_product and wave_archive_sales_tax.
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?
Gives explicit when-not conditions — Wave refuses for system accounts and accounts with a balance — which is exactly the guidance an agent needs before attempting the call. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g. wave_update_account for making an account inactive-by-other-means), so it is not a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.