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 write/safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that the current local version becomes the public one — but says nothing about reversibility (can it be unpublished?), permissions required, or side effects on an already-published version, despite idempotentHint=false implying repeat calls matter.

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 tight sentence, verb-first, with the outcome clause front-loaded; no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves little room for the supporting details an agent would benefit from.

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 one-parameter mutation with a clear annotation profile and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a publish operation the agent still lacks the key operational facts — reversibility, permissions, and behavior when the quiz is already published — so it is sufficient but not complete.

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% with a single documented parameter ('ID опроса для публикации'), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema states — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Публикует опрос') and adds the resulting state change ('текущая локальная версия становится публичной'). It is clear what the tool does and it is distinguishable from siblings like archive_quiz or restore_quiz_version, though it never names any alternative 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (archive_quiz, restore_quiz_version, set_quiz_link) and no prerequisites such as whether the quiz must already be saved or have a valid structure before publishing. The agent must infer the context entirely.

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