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

Annotations declare the non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-read-only profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the resource is created in a disabled state and requires a separate enable step, plus a URL policy that rejects internal addresses. It does not explain duplicate-handling despite idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose first, then the activation workflow, then the address constraint. No filler, and the most important behavioral nuance (disabled-by-default) is front-loaded.

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 9-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the critical gotcha an agent must know (created off, enable later). With no output schema, it could have indicated what is returned to feed into toggle_quiz_webhook, but the essentials are present.

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 every parameter including url, body, hours, method, and body_naming is already documented. The description only restates the public http/https constraint that the url schema already carries, adding no new per-parameter meaning.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Добавляет вебхук к опросу'), and the second explicitly routes the agent to the sibling toggle_quiz_webhook for a different action, so it is distinguishable from create/update/toggle/delete webhook siblings.

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 gives a concrete workflow: the webhook is created disabled, the agent should verify by sending, then enable it via toggle_quiz_webhook, which is a clear context for use. It does not, however, say when to prefer update_quiz_webhook over a fresh create, so an exclusion is missing.

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