archive_field

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

Beyond destructiveHint=false it explicitly clarifies the semantics ('Never a delete: every value already stored survives and stays readable through list_field_values'), which is exactly the reassurance an agent needs before mutating a schema object. It also discloses the return payload (count of saved views still naming the field) despite there being no output schema, and frames the caller's follow-up action (warn the user).

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, each carrying distinct information: purpose, non-destructive guarantee, and return value. The most important constraint (it is not a delete) is front-loaded.

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 simple 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, safety, side effects, and the return shape. The only real gap is the undocumented parameters, especially idempotencyKey.

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% for all three parameters, and the description says nothing about workspaceId, fieldDefId, or the idempotencyKey — notably the idempotencyKey, whose retry semantics are non-obvious. The names are largely self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a custom field') plus the operational effect ('stops being offered as an input'), which cleanly separates it from define_field, confirm_field, set_field_value and list_field_defs in the sibling list.

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 condition for use is clear — retiring a field from the input surface while keeping its data — and it points to list_field_values as the way to still read stored values. It stops short of explicitly naming when not to archive or which sibling to use instead of archiving, but the context is unambiguous.

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