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

Annotations only declare the generic safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent). The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the quiz is created in draft state and becomes visible to respondents only after publish_quiz. It does not cover permissions or whether creation is reversible, hence not a 5.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no waste: purpose first, then editing path, draft/publish behavior, and parameter sourcing. Every sentence earns its place.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential lifecycle (template lookup, creation with inherited content, draft state, publish step). It lacks detail on what happens to the template after creation (independent copy vs. link) and any permission prerequisites, but is otherwise sufficient.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes that template_id comes from search_quiz_templates (already in the schema) and does not add format or defaulting nuance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Создаёт свой опрос из шаблона каталога') and immediately clarifies scope: the quiz is created with all questions, logic, and design carried over from the template. This implicitly distinguishes it from create_quiz (blank) and generate_ai_quiz, and it names search_quiz_templates as the template source, so an agent can tell what this produces.

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?

Gives clear workflow context: template_id comes from search_quiz_templates, further editing is done with regular tools, and visibility requires publish_quiz. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over create_quiz or duplicate_quiz, but the usage path is well implied.

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