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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data, not the description. The description adds nothing behavioral: no statement of what archiving does to the quiz (visibility, respondent access, reversibility), though the description does confirm the two-way toggle semantics. Note idempotentHint=false is questionable for a set-to-state toggle, but the description neither confirms nor contradicts it.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Efficient, but its brevity is partly under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 only two fully-documented parameters and no output schema, the structured data is largely sufficient for invocation. What is missing is outcome context: whether archiving hides the quiz from listings, affects respondents, or can be undone. Adequate but not complete for a mutation tool.

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%, and both parameters carry inline descriptions ('true — в архив, false — из архива', 'ID опроса'). The description mirrors that same archive/unarchive meaning but adds no format, constraint, or edge-case detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('архивирует или разархивирует опрос'), clearly distinguishing it as a state toggle rather than a create/delete/rename operation. However, it never names the sibling tools it differs from (delete_quiz, restore_quiz, publish_quiz), so an agent must infer the boundaries itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as delete_quiz or restore_quiz. The agent learns what the tool does but nothing about when this is the correct choice over its many siblings.

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