Archive documents in Outline wiki by moving them to archived status. Use this tool to remove active documents from regular view while preserving their content.
Archive a document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| documentId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Archive a document' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify whether archiving is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects document visibility or access, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 extremely concise with a single sentence that states the core action. There's no wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the essential information, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
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 tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like what archiving entails, how it differs from deletion or moving, or what happens after invocation.
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 description adds no meaning beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 undocumented parameter ('documentId'), the description doesn't explain what a documentId is, how to obtain it, or its format. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 'Archive a document' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb ('archive') and resource ('document'), but doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'batch_archive_documents' or clarify what archiving means in this context versus deletion or moving.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when archiving is appropriate versus deletion or moving, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'unarchive_document', 'list_archived_documents', or 'batch_archive_documents'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.