wave_archive_productArchive a product or service to prevent adding it to new invoices while preserving existing invoice history. Note that un-archiving is only possible in the Wave web app.
Archive a product/service so it can no longer be added to new invoices. Past invoices keep it. The API cannot un-archive (web app only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Product 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, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing two non-obvious behaviors: past invoices retain the product, and the archive is irreversible through the API. It doesn't say what happens to existing recurring or draft invoices, which is the remaining gap.
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, zero filler, and the primary effect is front-loaded before the edge cases. Each sentence contributes a distinct fact: effect, invoice history, irreversibility.
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 and safety already covered by annotations, the description covers effect, historical scope, and reversibility. Only secondary consequences (recurring invoices, estimates referencing the product) are left implicit.
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 one required parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already labels it "Product ID". The description adds no meaning about the id (for example, whether it accepts an internal ID versus a display name), so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
"Archive a product/service" gives a specific verb and resource, and the qualifier "so it can no longer be added to new invoices" states the observable effect. The agent can distinguish this from wave_update_product or wave_list_products by the archive semantics, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 implies the use case (retiring a product from future invoices) but never states when to prefer this over wave_update_product or how it relates to other product tools. The one routing fact given -- un-archiving is web-app only -- is about recovery, not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.