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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it never says what collateral effect deleting a variable has (e.g., whether collected answer values for that field are lost) or whether the deletion is recoverable, which is the key context an agent needs for a destructive operation.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than optimal informativeness.

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 destructive delete with two required identifiers and no output schema, the description omits the consequences of deletion and any recovery note. Annotations cover the safety flag, but the agent still lacks enough context to predict the operation's blast radius.

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%, and field_id already tells the agent to source the UUID from quiz://{id}/variables, so the schema is doing the documentation work. The description adds no additional parameter meaning. 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 and resource: 'Удаляет скрытую переменную (extra field) из опроса.' The parenthetical maps the internal term to the domain concept (extra field), which helps. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings like delete_hidden_option or update_quiz_variable.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. It doesn't tell the agent how this differs from delete_hidden_option, update_quiz_variable, or removing the variable another way, leaving selection entirely to inference from the name.

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