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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety framing is covered. The description adds the useful effect — the assessment returns to the visible history — but says nothing about whether archiving is reversible, what happens if the id is not archived, or any permission requirements.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a trivial one-parameter tool, though it leaves room for one clarifying clause about the source of the id.

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 one-param mutation with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers the core effect. It stops short of explaining edge behavior (id not archived, visibility to the student) that would make it fully complete.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already tells the agent to take the id from list_archived_assessments. The description adds no further meaning about the id's scope or format; baseline 3 applies.

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 — unarchive an assessment — matching the title and clearly the inverse of the sibling archive_assessment. It does not name that sibling or list_archived_assessments explicitly in the description, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 must infer that this applies to assessments previously archived and discoverable via list_archived_assessments. That pointer lives in the schema, not the description, and no when-not or alternative path (e.g. unlinked vs archived) is stated.

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