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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the central behavior: the mapping for the selected entity is fully replaced («чего в переданном наборе нет, того в сопоставлении не останется») while other entities are untouched, plus the funnel/stage compatibility constraint. It does not mention permission requirements or what a successful response contains, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core mechanic and replacement semantics, then prerequisites, then the sibling exclusion — a logical order with no filler. It is dense (every clause is a rule), but slightly packed into long sentences, so not a 5.

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 12-parameter, nested-object mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers replacement semantics, entity scoping, prerequisite lookups, stage/funnel validity, and the sibling alternative. Remaining gaps are secondary: interaction with the optional enabled flag and error/response expectations.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning: field keys must come from the Bitrix24 directory, widget_id values from the quiz structure, and the stage must be compatible with the funnel — a constraint not stated in the schema text for status/default_stage.

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 — mapping survey fields to Bitrix24 fields — with a concrete worked example («пусть телефон из опроса попадает в телефон лида»). Explicitly separates itself from get_quiz_crm_fields (read) and manage_quiz_amocrm_mapping (amoCRM), so an agent can pick the right tool 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?

Names the prerequisite tool (get_quiz_crm_fields) and the resource URI (quiz://{id}/structure) for the IDs, and states the exclusion: amoCRM is configured by manage_quiz_amocrm_mapping instead. It also bounds the call to exactly one entity, which is the key usage constraint.

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