archive_course

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Non-destructive: data, enrolments and teacher access stay intact,' which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. It also implies reversibility by mentioning un-archiving. It could add permission requirements or edge-case behavior, but this is adequate for a simple toggle.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple 2-parameter toggle tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, use case, and non-destructive nature. It lacks mention of permission requirements or behavior when the course is already in the requested state, but given the tool's simplicity, the provided context is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The schema already documents the 'visible' parameter with 'false = archive/hide, true = unarchive/show', and the description mostly restates that. The 'course_id' parameter has no schema description and is not explained in the description, relying on the name for inference. With 50% schema description coverage, the description does not significantly compensate for the missing course_id semantics, so a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Archive (visible=0) or un-archive (visible=1) a course.' It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from similar operations like delete_resource or hide_section. The two modes are explicitly defined.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'Use it for end-of-year cleanup or hiding a course in preparation.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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