Archive a customer need by its ID to remove it from active use. Resolve clutter by storing outdated needs while preserving data.
Archive a customer need
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Customer need ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description 'Archive a customer need' is consistent but adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as reversibility or side effects.
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 at four words, with no wasted text. It is frontloaded and easy to parse, though it could benefit from a slightly more structured form to include key details.
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 destructive nature and the existence of an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what archiving entails (e.g., whether it is reversible, effects on visibility) or provide context on when to archive, making it incomplete for a safe and effective tool use.
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?
There is only one parameter 'id' with a basic description in the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add extra semantics, but it also does not provide any additional context beyond the schema.
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 verb 'Archive' and the resource 'customer need', making the purpose evident. However, it does not distinguish from similar sibling tools like 'linear_archiveRoadmap' or 'linear_archiveMilestone', hence a 4.
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 does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or context for archiving a customer need, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.