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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that archiving removes the class from the class list, that nothing is deleted, how to reverse it, and the ownership restriction for co-taught classes. These are real behavioral facts not derivable from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint alone.

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 tightly packed sentence covers both modes, the side effect, and the permission constraint with no filler. The most decision-relevant information (archive vs restore) 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?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description only needs to add behavioral context, which it does (soft-hide, reversibility, owner-only for co-taught). Minor gaps remain around non-owner failure handling, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%: classId's source (list_classes) and archived's meaning (false restores) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the archived:false semantics but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource (archive/restore a class) and clarifies the two modes of the single operation. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like archive_assignment and update_class, so an agent can pick it without opening the 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 tells the agent how to select the restore behavior (pass archived: false) and adds an authorization prerequisite: co-taught classes can only be archived by their owner. It does not name an alternative tool or describe failure behavior when the caller is not the owner, so it stops short of fully explicit when/when-not guidance.

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