wave_archive_sales_taxArchive a sales tax by ID to prevent it from being applied; use this when retiring a tax, since the API does not support unarchiving.
Archive a sales tax so it can no longer be applied. No un-archive through the API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Sales tax 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 covered. The description still earns credit for spelling out the semantic consequence — the tax can no longer be applied — and for explicitly stating there is no API path to undo it, which goes beyond the hints. It doesn't say what happens to historical invoices/transactions already using the tax.
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 short sentences, the effect front-loaded and the irreversibility constraint immediately after. No padding, nothing redundant with the title.
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, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers the effect and irreversibility, which are the essentials. The notable remaining gap is whether already-issued invoices keep referencing the tax, which matters for a destructive operation.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no meaning about the ID format or what a bad/missing ID returns, so 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?
States a specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('sales tax') and adds the consequence ('can no longer be applied'), so the agent knows the operation's effect. It doesn't contrast with sibling archive tools (archive_product, archive_account), but the name plus description makes the target resource unambiguous.
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 phrase 'No un-archive through the API' signals a when-to-use caution by flagging irreversibility, which is real guidance. However, it never names an alternative (e.g., update_sales_tax to modify rather than retire a tax) or states prerequisites such as whether the tax must be unused first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.