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

The description explicitly discloses that 'Удаление снимает и подписки — связка в Zapier перестанет получать ответы, и собирать её придётся заново', i.e. the delete action removes subscriptions and is irreversible without rebuilding. This directly conflicts with the annotation destructiveHint=false, which tells the agent the tool performs only additive updates. That is a material conflict, so per the rule it scores 1.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is, then how it works, then the delete consequence — every sentence carries useful information and there is no padding. Slightly redundant between the 'switch' framing and the wiring note, so not quite 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 2-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description covers the operational model (no keys needed, one switch) and the most consequential behavior (delete removes subscriptions and requires rebuilding). It would be more complete if it named the sibling integrations tools, but the essentials for a correct call are present.

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 and the action enum (show/activate/deactivate/delete) are already fully documented in the schema, including that delete removes subscriptions. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Интеграция опроса с Zapier' / toggling answer forwarding) and frames the tool as a single switch, so an agent knows exactly what it controls. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as get_quiz_integrations or manage_quiz_webhook, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

It gives real usage context: 'Само стороны Zapier это один переключатель', that the wiring is assembled on the Zapier side, and that no keys are entered here — useful framing for when this tool (not a key-entry or webhook tool) is the right choice. It provides no explicit when-not or alternative-tool comparison, so it lands at 4.

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