unarchive_assignment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the permission requirement but does not explain what unarchiving changes, whether it is reversible, or what happens if the assignment is already active. This is thin for a mutation operation.

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?

The description is two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the permission note second. There is no filler or repeated information, making it appropriately concise.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter coverage, the description is too sparse. An agent can infer the basic action but lacks enough context about parameters, effects, and expected behavior to invoke it confidently.

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 0%, and the description is silent about both parameters. The agent cannot learn from the description what 'assignment_id' refers to or what role the optional 'profile' parameter plays, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Unarchive an assignment.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like archive_assignment and unarchive_user, leaving no ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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 permission prerequisite gives some context, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as archive_assignment or unarchive_user. The intended use is implied by the name and verb rather than stated.

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