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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and idempotent=false, so the safety frame is partly covered, but the description adds real behavioral context: the rollback only touches the draft, respondents and the live version are unaffected until a republish via publish_quiz. That side-effect/when-it-takes-effect detail is exactly what annotations don't convey.

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?

The rollback purpose is front-loaded, then the non-impact on respondents and the publish workflow follow. Every sentence carries information, though the publish explanation runs slightly long for a two-parameter tool.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: what is overwritten (the draft), what is not (live/respondents), and how it pairs with publish_quiz and get_quiz_versions. Minor details like overwrite of existing draft content are implied rather than stated.

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% and both params are documented ('ID опроса', 'ID снимка из get_quiz_versions'). The description references get_quiz_versions for the snapshot list, which only echoes the schema's own hint, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: returning the content of a previous quiz snapshot into the draft, framed as rolling back a failed edit. The snapshot/version concept clearly separates it from the sibling restore_quiz and get_quiz_versions. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with restore_quiz, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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 a clear use case ('откат неудачной правки') and routes the agent to get_quiz_versions for the snapshot list and publish_quiz for the follow-up publish step. It explains the intended workflow (review first, publish second). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so not a 5.

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