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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the effect is visibility-scoped (student's history only) and non-destructive, which corroborates destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false. It stops short of saying whether the assessment remains visible to the trainer/admin, whether the action is reversible via unarchive_assessment, or what permissions are needed.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, with the critical constraint ('without deleting it') placed after the core action. Nothing to trim or reorder.

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, non-destructive mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is not pointing at unarchive_assessment for reversal and not clarifying audience of the hidden state.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% ('The id from list_assessments'), so the schema already carries the load. The description adds no extra meaning about the id, format, or provenance, which is acceptable at baseline for a single fully-described param.

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 (archive/hide) and resource (assessment) plus the key scope distinction 'from the student's history without deleting it'. An agent can distinguish it from a delete or an update, though it never names the closest siblings (update_assessment, unarchive_assessment) explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you archive instead of deleting when you want to keep the record. There is no explicit 'use this when... use X instead' guidance, no mention of unarchive_assessment as the reversal path, and no prerequisite conditions.

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