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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds important context: past work is preserved in the teacher's results, and an undoId enables exact restoration within seven days. This exceeds annotation coverage but omits permission or failure-condition details.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the effect and followed by the restoration behavior. No wasted words.

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 provided, return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers the core mutation effect and reversibility well, though it could mention permission requirements or what happens to invalid handles.

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%, but the schema itself describes both parameters (classId source and handle format). The description adds 'by handle' but no syntax, limits, or classId explanation beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (removes), resource (students by handle from a class roster), and distinguishes this from add/restore siblings through the roster-removal scope. An agent can identify the action 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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention restore_students, update_student, or class-related siblings, leaving the agent to infer when removal is appropriate.

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