Archive Data Type

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is already flagged; the description usefully refines it by clarifying this is a soft-delete whose data remains recoverable via restore_data_type, which materially changes how an agent should weigh the operation. It does not, however, mention any auth requirements or side effects on dependent records beyond 'its recorded data'.

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 core action, then recovery, then eligibility. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or schema.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and destructiveHint annotations, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: the soft-delete semantics, the restore path, and the type-eligibility constraint. Nothing material 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter's format ('<BaseType>/<uuid>' from get_data_catalog) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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.' The parenthetical disambiguates the operation from hard deletes like delete_file, and the scope ('user-defined') separates it from other data-type operations.

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?

Explicitly names the counterpart restore_data_type as the recovery path and states the eligibility precondition ('Only user-defined types (created via create_data_type or the Context app) can be archived'). An agent knows both when this applies and when it does not.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.