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

Annotations already say destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes further by explaining why: the module is retained and recoverable, requires an owner/admin seat, and the idempotency key must be reused on retries. That is real context beyond the structured fields. It stops short of saying what happens to assignments or whether the module stays visible to learners.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the core archive/retention fact and the permission constraint front-loaded before the restore path and retry note. The clause "as its Delete does" is slightly clumsy phrasing but does not waste space.

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 two-parameter archival mutation, the definition covers retention, permissions, restoration route, and retry semantics, which is most of what an agent needs. The only missing piece is any indication of what the call returns, which is more notable because no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 50%; idempotency_key is already fully documented in the schema and the description only reinforces the retry rule, while module_id carries no explanation in either place beyond the UUID format. Meaning added beyond the schema is therefore marginal, matching the baseline for partial coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Archives a training module") and immediately sets it apart from a hard delete by noting the record is kept. It also names the sibling that restores it (edit_training_module with status draft), so an agent can distinguish the operations without opening a schema.

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 a clear use condition for the reverse direction (use edit_training_module status draft to bring it back) and states the permission gate (owner or admin seats only). It does not state when an agent should prefer archiving over other removal paths such as delete_training_question or remove_training_assignment, leaving some sibling routing implicit.

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