archive_field

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it reveals that archiving is non-destructive, that values remain readable, and that the response includes a count of saved views still referencing the field. It does not mention reversibility or permissions, but the most decision-relevant behaviors are disclosed.

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 tight sentences: the main purpose comes first, followed by the critical non-destructive guarantee, then the useful return-value behavior. No filler or repetition.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential call context: what it does, what it does not do, where data remains readable, and what the caller should do with the response. The only notable gap is a lack of parameter-level detail, but the required IDs are reasonably inferable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain workspaceId, fieldDefId, or idempotencyKey. It only implies fieldDefId identifies the custom field. The parameter names are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds little semantic value 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 states a specific verb ('Archive'), a specific resource ('a custom field'), and the concrete effect ('stops being offered as an input'). It also draws a clear line against deletion, which distinguishes this from destructive sibling 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?

It gives clear contextual guidance: use this when you want to stop offering a field while preserving stored values. The explicit 'Never a delete' warning and the pointer to list_field_values provide useful boundaries, though it does not name a specific non-archive alternative.

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