Archive a feature flag to make it inactive in Bucketeer. Provide the flag ID and a comment for audit trail.
Archive a feature flag (make it inactive)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the feature flag to archive | |
| environmentId | No | Environment ID (uses default if not provided) | |
| comment | Yes | Comment for the archive action (required for audit trail) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('archive') and outcome ('make it inactive'), but doesn't mention critical details like whether this is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects audit trails, or has side effects on dependent systems. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and outcome, making it easy to scan and understand quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
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 the complexity of archiving (a mutation operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like reversibility, permissions, or response format, which are essential for safe and effective tool invocation by an AI agent.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the purpose of 'comment' beyond audit trails or default behavior for 'environmentId'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states the action ('archive') and resource ('feature flag') with the outcome ('make it inactive'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'updateFeatureFlag', which might also modify flag status, leaving some room for confusion.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'updateFeatureFlag' or 'createFeatureFlag'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the flag must be active, or exclusions, such as not using it for temporary deactivation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.