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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries nearly the full burden. It confirms the tool mutates state (implant/remove), but says nothing about what removal destroys, whether the implant returns to inventory, costs, or failure conditions. The mutation profile is the minimum available from the name plus annotations.

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 short sentence with the two modes front-loaded and parameter pairing parenthesized. Very little waste, though brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and parameter detail.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema, no annotations beyond readOnlyHint=false, and completely undescribed parameters; the description is too thin to let an agent fill insert/slot/delete correctly or predict consequences. It should document the parameter meanings and the effect of deletion.

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 three parameters are opaque one-letter/256-char strings ('slot', 'insert', 'delete'). The description only hints that insert pairs with slot and delete is the removal identifier; it doesn't explain what goes into insert/delete (implant name? inventory ID?) or what slot refers to.

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+resource ('вживить имплант' / 'удалить') scoped to a hospital building, and disambiguates two modes (insert+slot vs delete). It doesn't differentiate from close siblings like game_hospital_cure, game_implant_charge, or game_genetic, which an agent could easily confuse with implant work.

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 implies when each mode is used by mapping parameters to the two operations, but there is no explicit 'use this rather than game_implant_charge / game_hospital_cure' guidance. No stated prerequisites (being in the hospital, needing an implant item, cost) beyond the venue name.

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