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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral constraint that the widget UUID must be taken from the structure rather than invented, but omits permissions, side effects, or return behavior details.

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?

Two compact sentences: purpose first, then the key constraint. No filler or redundancy, though the fragment style of the second sentence slightly hurts readability.

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 4-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and annotations but no output schema, the description covers the core action and the critical UUID constraint. It falls short on sibling differentiation and any description of resulting side effects.

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 four parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description's widget_uuid guidance largely repeats the schema text ('Обязательно взять из quiz://{id}/structure ... не генерировать свой'), adding little beyond what is already present.

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 and resource: creating a hidden service option ('скрытую служебную опцию') for a quiz widget. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling create_hidden_option, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the description alone.

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 gives a concrete data-sourcing instruction ('widget_uuid — один из UUID из quiz://{id}/structure'), which is useful context. But it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling create_hidden_option or how it relates to update/delete variants.

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