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

Adds real context beyond annotations: the connection can die out-of-band because the token is revoked on the CRM side, which looks like a silent no-op here — that explains why a separate 'check' action exists. It does not, however, say what activate/deactivate implies for already-collected answers or in-flight submissions, and the mixed read-only/write action set is only implied by the action enum.

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?

Core capability is stated first, and sibling routing follows. It is slightly dense and the cabinet-login remark is tangential, but every clause carries routing or behavioral information rather than filler.

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 3-parameter toggle/status tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it does not do, and where the adjacent operations live. Return shape is not described, but no output schema exists to imply it — a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 coverage is 100% and both enums (crm, action) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces which CRMs are supported and what 'check' means in practice, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 concrete verb set (show enable state, activate/deactivate, check liveness) on a concrete resource (CRM answer forwarding to amoCRM/Bitrix24) for a given quiz. It also explicitly separates the mapping concern into get_quiz_crm_fields / manage_quiz_crm_mapping / manage_quiz_amocrm_mapping, so an agent can distinguish it from those siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit routing: field mapping goes to get_quiz_crm_fields and the two manage_*_mapping tools; portal connection is done in the cabinet (account login); overall integration state is in get_quiz_integrations. It also names the concrete situation that should trigger the 'check' action — a revoked token that manifests as a silent integration.

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