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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them by clarifying the nature of the 'destructive' action: it only removes the draft from the coursework list and 'nothing is deleted'. That reassurance plus the published-assignment exclusion is useful behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covers both modes and the safety semantics, followed by one short boundary sentence. Every clause earns its place, with 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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description needs only to convey scope, and it does. The one residual gap is not addressing the overlapping restore_assignment_draft sibling, which an agent might reasonably expect to be routed to.

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 100%, and the schema itself documents both parameters (archived's 'false restores' semantics and assignmentId's source in list_coursework). The description restates the archived:false meaning but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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States a specific verb (archives/restores) on a specific resource (unpublished draft) and distinguishes the two modes via 'archived: false'. It also draws a clear boundary against published assignments, which are handled elsewhere, so an agent can tell what this tool will and will not touch.

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 description gives clear context for when to use it (unpublished drafts) and when not (published assignments go through the website). However, it never mentions the sibling restore_assignment_draft, leaving an agent to infer whether restore should be done here via archived:false or through that dedicated tool.

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