archive_data_typeSoft-delete a user-defined data type while keeping its recorded data recoverable through restore.
Archive (soft-delete) a user-defined data type.
The type and its recorded data are recoverable with restore_data_type. Only user-defined types (created via create_data_type or the Context app) can be archived.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data_type | Yes | The "<BaseType>/<uuid>" ID from get_data_catalog. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.7Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's key contribution is qualifying that destructiveness: this is a soft-delete whose type and recorded data remain recoverable via restore_data_type. That materially changes the agent's risk calculus. It does not mention permission requirements or what the call returns, keeping it short of a 5.
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, front-loaded with the action and its soft-delete qualification, then the recovery path, then the eligibility constraint. No filler.
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?
With one fully documented parameter and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the essential missing context (recoverability, eligibility). The only gap is any indication of what a successful call returns, which matters slightly more given there is no output schema.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already specifies the '<BaseType>/<uuid>' ID format sourced from get_data_catalog. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter, 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Archive (soft-delete) a user-defined data type') and immediately clarifies the mutation's nature. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like delete_file, delete_records, and restore_data_type.
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 a clear precondition (only user-defined types created via create_data_type or the Context app) and names restore_data_type as the inverse operation. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead when' routing statement, but the eligibility constraint effectively excludes the wrong cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.