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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is known. Beyond that the description adds almost nothing: it doesn't say whether repeat calls create duplicate templates, whether the source quiz is mutated, or what the caller gets back.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly the source of the gaps noted elsewhere.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations beyond the safety hints, the description should explain the outcome (e.g., where the template appears, whether it can be reused). Instead it leaves the agent to infer the result of the operation.

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%: quiz_id is fully documented in the schema as the quiz to save as a template. The description adds no further param meaning, so the baseline 3 for schema-complete parameters 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Создает шаблон на основе текущего опроса' (creates a template based on the current quiz). It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not differentiate itself from the reverse-direction sibling create_quiz_from_template or from search_quiz_templates.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling set contains closely related operations (create_quiz_from_template, save_quiz_email_template, get_workspace_templates), yet the description offers no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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