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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one useful behavioral fact — the copy includes all data and versions — but says nothing about default naming, what is excluded, or whether repeated calls create further copies.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope with no filler. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 simple duplication tool with full schema coverage and annotations, this is close to sufficient. However, with no output schema the description could have said what the result is (the new quiz and its ID), and it omits any mention of naming behavior or folder permissions outside the schema.

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 the schema already explains name, quiz_id, and the folder_id default/permission nuance. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, 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 and resource: creates a copy of an existing quiz, with scope 'со всеми данными и версиями'. This clearly separates it from create_quiz or create_quiz_from_template, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 at all. The agent gets no signal on when to duplicate versus create a quiz, use a template, or make_quiz_template, and no prerequisites (e.g. permission needed for cross-folder copies) are mentioned in the description itself.

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